Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Museums

Syd Rapson: What effect free entry to national museums has had on attendances.

Tessa Jowell: The first 12 months of full free entry have seen a 70 per cent. increase in attendances at DCMS-sponsored, formerly charging museums and galleries. We are carrying out a further analysis of the impact on each institution, which will be published shortly. This represents a promise made and a promise delivered by the Government, and millions of people are deriving the benefit.

Syd Rapson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Government should be congratulated on that phenomenal result. Two years ago, the Secretary of State commissioned a report by Dr. Alan Borg of the Victoria and Albert museum to consider whether Portsmouth's maritime heritage collection could be contained in a national museum. Given that Portsmouth has the Victory, the Warrior and the Mary Rose, along with the museum, it should have a national museum by now. Has any progress been made on that report?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and commend him on his continued support for those four very important visitor attractions and heritage sites in his constituency. He rightly refers to Alan Borg—a distinguished former director of the V and A, who looked at the relationship between the four museums in or near to my hon. Friend's constituency and proposed that their management would benefit from closer integration, which is why we propose to set up a company with a single chief executive to run the dockyard. There will be further meetings this week to ensure that a rapid conclusion is reached on those arrangements, which will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents.

Peter Viggers: I declare an interest as a director of HMS Warrior 1860, which is an unpaid position of which I am very proud. May I wish this project well and tell the Secretary of State that, if the unification of the facilities in the Portsmouth heritage area proceeds, account should also be taken of the other tourist attractions around Portsmouth harbour, because the essence of the millennium project is that people should be encouraged to use water transport and to visit all the attractions around the harbour?

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which certainly sounds eminently sensible, and I shall ensure that it is drawn to the attention of those who are engaged in the negotiations to which I referred.

Tony Banks: It is really great to see so many people taking advantage of our wonderful museums and art galleries through free admission, but, of course, that means that those museums are looking around for additional funding as well, and the other part of the Government's policy is to ensure that they are properly funded. The national portrait gallery, with which I have my own connections, has an acquisition budget of only #305,000 in the current year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is pretty appalling for one of the premier collections of portraits in the world?

Tessa Jowell: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, but the extremely successful outcome for all our national museums and galleries in the last spending round means that they will receive real-terms increases of 1.5 and 2.5 per cent. respectively in 2004–05 and 2005–06. Of course every museum and gallery in the country—whether regional or national—could benefit from more money, but we have now pulled back from the generation of underfunding that occurred under the previous Government, and I pay tribute to those museums and galleries that are considering other sources of funding, on top of the Government's very generous settlement.

Malcolm Moss: Does the Secretary of State agree with the conclusion of the recent Select Committee report, which defined as opaque the present process of allocating funds to museums and galleries and concluded that, if funding decisions were totally dependent on Treasury fiat, either the Treasury must be involved round a table or the other parties should not waste each other's time? Can the Secretary of State be as candid with us as her ministerial colleague was about the Turner prize and admit that she has been wasting her time and that of the museums?

Tessa Jowell: There is nothing conceptual about the business of allocating resources to our museums and galleries; it involves dealing with hard facts on the basis of the Treasury allocation, and the decisions are made by my Department and by me, in discussion with the heads of the museums and galleries, who broadly declared themselves to be very satisfied with the allocations that they had secured. A very important part of the settlement was to ensure the continuation of the extremely successful policy of free entry.

Kevan Jones: While welcoming the national free entry to museums scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that it leaves certain regional museums at a disadvantage, such as the Beamish museum in my constituency, and the Bowes museum at Bishop Auckland, both of which have collections of national significance? Will my right hon. Friend consider what support can be given to museums such as those, which have national collections but are at a clear disadvantage under the present scheme?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend refers to two extremely successful and significant regional museums. He will be aware that we have announced, this year and over the three years of the next spending round, a settlement of #70 million to begin the regeneration and rebuilding of our regional museums and, specifically, to establish closer links between national museums and regional museums. That is all part of building our commitment to access to excellence wherever people live in the country.

Churches and Church Halls (Licensing)

John Randall: What estimate she has made of the costs that will be incurred by churches and church halls as a result of the provisions contained in the Licensing Bill.

Tim Boswell: What representations she has received from church organisations concerning the Licensing Bill.

Kim Howells: Any costs for churches and church halls under the provisions of the Licensing Bill as it stands would depend on the licensable activities, if any, which are undertaken and their frequency, and whether temporary or permanent permissions are sought. The Archbishops Council of the Church of England wrote to me to express its concern that the provision of entertainment in churches outside Greater London would be brought under the licensing regime by the Licensing Bill. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that while I cannot provide them with a solution today, the Government have made a commitment to reconsider our position on this issue and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

John Randall: I am very grateful to the Minister for seeing sense. The sooner we get the new regulations, the better, as that part of the legislation would best be described with the words that he used to describe certain types of modern art.

Kim Howells: I could not possibly comment.

Tim Boswell: We have the answer for which we were hoping. Would the Minister accept as representative the comments of my constituent, Mr. Williams, who is chairman of the trustees of the Holy Sepulchre restoration trust in Northampton? In particular, he points out that the use of his church, which is an 11th century crusader round church, is as important to the schools that perform there as to the church which brings in the takings. Will the hon. Gentleman give us an absolute assurance—or as absolute an assurance as he can—that nine centuries of history are not going to be sacrificed to nine minutes of ministerial inadvertence?

Kim Howells: I will certainly do my utmost to ensure that that does not happen. If I may, however, I ask the hon. Gentleman to hold his fire until we have reconsidered our position on the matter.

Alan Howarth: Can I—I think I can—congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on intervening to restore common sense and ensure that, in an uncharacteristic excess of bureaucratic zeal, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not wipe out the indispensable tradition of music-making in churches? Will they go further and impress on the Arts Council the need to support church and cathedral music positively, just as English Heritage has supported the conservation of the physical fabric of our churches and cathedrals?

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend has fought long and hard to help church and cathedral music wherever he can. I reassure him that I have no intention of doing it any harm whatever, and that I will do all that I can through regulation to ensure that it thrives.

Gordon Marsden: Having met a group of clergy in Blackpool on Friday, may I tell my hon. Friend how welcome were the words of Baroness Blackstone in another place on Thursday? Does he appreciate the extent to which many places of worship depend on the activities and income that come from such events, the licensing of which is now to be reviewed? Will his Department do everything that it can to make sure that a perfectly reasonable attempt to correct an existing licensing anomaly does not become an unfair and intolerable burden on places of worship?

Kim Howells: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I also thank him for the work that he has done to make my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me very much aware of the circumstances that obtain both in his constituency and in those of many other right hon. and hon. Members.

Nick Harvey: Does the Minister agree that, in the absence of the guidance promised in the Bill, it is quite to hard to decipher the Department's intentions on church concerts or anything else? Do we need to license activities in church at all, given that there has not been a serious public order offence in a church since the time of Thomas a Becket? Does he accept that, even if he waived the fee, the application process would in any event be an unwelcome layer of bureaucracy for already hard-pressed volunteers?

Kim Howells: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point very well. I hope that he will accept the statement that I made earlier.

Jack Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed, not least in rural areas where churches and church halls sometimes provide the only facility in which cultural, educational and musical activities can take place? They are therefore an essential part of the fabric of rural communities for those as well as other purposes. Will he ensure that, when he reconsiders the matter, churches and church halls are finally completely exempted from the proposals?

Kim Howells: I get my right hon. Friend's message loud and clear. I shall certainly consider what he said.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the Minister's statement as far as it goes, but does he accept that a Bill that will require anything up to 15,000 parish churches—not to mention the places of worship of other faiths—to apply for a licence at a not insignificant cost cannot possibly be described, as the Secretary of State has described it, as deregulatory, and that anything less than the continuation of the existing exemption and a complete abandonment of the proposals in the Bill will be unacceptable?

Kim Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that, for a long time, the Conservative Government had a chance to get rid of the rule that has existed for 40 years, which says that churches inside London have to apply for and receive a licence for the playing and singing of secular music. I hear what he says, but I hope that he will accept that we do not need lessons from the Conservative party on getting rid of the regulations.

John Whittingdale: I point out to the Minister that the existing exemption for churches was granted by Parliament in 1982, under the previous Conservative Government. However, given his willingness to see reason this afternoon, perhaps he would like to consider another aspect of the Licensing Bill, which is that covering licensing for the live performance of music. Will he explain how a Bill that will require thousands of live musicians to perform only in licensed venues, when there is at present no requirement for a licence, is deregulatory?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That goes far beyond the original question.

Hotels and Tourist Accommodation

Lawrie Quinn: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the voluntary schemes for standards in hotels and other tourist accommodation.

Kim Howells: The English Tourism Council research shows clear benefits in terms of higher occupancy levels for those establishments that participate in the national quality assurance schemes. We want to improve their impact further and will shortly commission a review of accommodation quality as part of our tourism reform programme.

Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work that Scarborough borough council has done to establish its own scheme, which feeds into the national scheme, should be regarded as an exemplar by many people around the country? If they met the high standards that exist on the Yorkshire coast, it would do the UK's tourism and hospitality industry an awful lot of good and would put us where we should be as a world leader.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend can justifiably be proud of Scarborough's achievement. It won the 2002 England for Excellence award as the most improved resort. It has faced great difficulties over the past 30 years and has succeeded to a significant degree in reinventing itself as a first-class resort and as a great tourist attraction.

Anne Begg: Does my hon. Friend accept that booking hotel accommodation can be a bit of a lottery, as I found to my cost in Blackpool at the recent Labour party conference? Does he also accept that that lottery is made even more difficult when it comes to booking accommodation for people with a disability? Will he look into that specific aspect of regulation to ensure that guidance to hotels makes it clear that their advertisements should state whether they are wheelchair or disabled friendly?

Kim Howells: I have been very concerned that hotels and bed and breakfasts that advertise themselves as being disabled friendly or wheelchair compatible turn out not to be so or to be only partially so. That often means that people who have spent very good money on holidays are greatly disappointed when they do not get the facilities that they require. I know that the English Tourism Council has also been very concerned about that and we will take it forward as an important theme in the review of our support for tourism in this country.

Crime Prevention

Graham Allen: What visits have been made to Nottingham, North constituency by ministers to discuss funding for sport to divert youngsters from crime since 1997.

Richard Caborn: There have been 18 visits by the Department's Ministers to Nottingham, North since 1997 to discuss sport. I shall send my hon. Friend a total list of those 18 visits.

Graham Allen: I know that the Minister for Sport is aware of the position of the Henry Mellish school, which hopes to come out of special measures and is the last school in the constituency to do so. It has problems in the local area with crime and hopes to divert youngsters from that by getting them involved in sport. Will my right hon. Friend give a fair wind to the new opportunities fund bid for a new #1 million sports hall so that we can use sport to divert those youngsters and youngsters outside school from activities that we do not want to encourage them into? Will he also put a possible opening date in his diary so that he or his right hon. Friend can come up and do the honours?

Richard Caborn: I would love to give the bid a fair wind, but it is a matter for the new opportunities fund. I understand that congratulations are in order for the Henry Mellish school for passing the first stage of the new opportunities fund application. My hon. Friend knows that it is an arm's-length organisation and that it will make an objective assessment. The bid comes on the back of #750 million of investment in sports facilities through the new opportunities fund. We can all be proud of what the lottery has delivered. Contrary to what we read about school playing fields on the front page of The Guardian this morning, the investment in sports facilities and playing fields is at as high a level as it has been for many years.

Lottery Funding

Henry Bellingham: When she next expects to meet representatives of village communities to discuss lottery funding for local projects.

Tessa Jowell: The lottery review has provided an opportunity for representatives of village communities to put forward their concerns about the lottery funds for local and rural projects. I welcome their representations and would be happy to meet them once the representations, which I gather have been submitted, have been considered.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that some ridiculous and undeserving organisations have received substantial amounts of money? For example, the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns has received #740,000 to mount legal challenges against her Home Office colleagues while all the time deserving organisations in my constituency—local groups and parish groups—are being turned down. What will she do to ensure that the community fund changes its priorities? What will she do to get a grip on it?

Tessa Jowell: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to associate himself with the nasty campaign against the community fund. I draw his attention to the fact that since 1995, it has awarded #109 million for building, extending and improving more than 2,200 village halls as part of #645 million that has been given to projects in rural areas. That is good constructive work, using lottery money to do the things that people want. It does neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Opposition any service at all to make that cheap point.

Chris Bryant: I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend will be meeting representatives of village communities, but may I urge her not just to think of villages as being places in rural areas? There are villages in former mining constituencies, many of which share the characteristics of rural constituencies, such as difficulties with access and, in particular, in attracting lottery funding. I urge her to keep under constant review the question of how we can fairly make more money available to former mining constituencies.

Tessa Jowell: As ever, my hon. Friend is speaking up for the interests of his constituents, who have benefited from his advocacy and, with other villages in coalfield communities, from the increased lottery allocation of which he will be aware. One of our concerns about the way in which the lottery operates is that village communities may find themselves falling between two or perhaps three different distributors when seeking lottery funds, and one of the tests of the review will be how effective it is in tackling such bureaucracy.

Nick Hawkins: The Secretary of State's appalling answer to the legitimate concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on behalf of his constituents will be unacceptable to my constituents. I have been besieged by letters from them protesting about the fact that a valuable village community centre has failed to get a grant from the community fund because it does not provide facilities for asylum seekers. If the Secretary of State wants to dismiss the concerns of millions of British citizens about the community fund's appalling decisions, she will rue the day. The Home Secretary has attacked one of those decisions—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tessa Jowell: We have heard a rant from a spokesman for the nasty party. The point remains that 5 per cent., or #12 million, of community fund grants go to asylum seekers, and those broad allocations were approved by the Government. As I have already made clear to the House, there has also been major investment in rural communities, as there should be. The community fund exists to serve communities of all kinds in all parts of the country; that is what we expect it to do and that is what it will do.

John Greenway: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new opportunities fund has significantly underspent its funding from rounds 1 and 2, it is rumoured by as much as #200 million? As that money was taken from the original good causes such as the community fund, whose funds are now even more depleted as a result of falling ticket sales, and as it is Christmas, will the Secretary of State consider returning some of that money to the original good causes for more community projects? It is not that there have not been any such projects, but many applications are turned down because of a lack of money. We need more community projects such as village halls and grass-roots sports clubs. That is not an unreasonable request.

Tessa Jowell: I would certainly like to see more money going into grass-roots sports facilities and into the communities on whose behalf Members on both sides of the House have been making representations.
	I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted. He may be confusing money committed by the community fund with money that is part of the income stream. I shall certainly look at the figures. In answer to his broad point, I am absolutely determined that the level of lottery balances will fall; the present level is unacceptably high. However, we have to distinguish clearly between money that has been committed but not yet spent by the projects concerned, and money that is available. That argument may be a touch too sophisticated for many of those on the Opposition Benches.

National Lottery

Adrian Flook: When she last met Camelot to discuss methods of improving lottery ticket sales.

Richard Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed ticket sales with Camelot in April, and I plan to do so next month.

Adrian Flook: I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that there is a direct correlation between sales and the public's impression of money going to good and worthy causes, does he not agree that the lottery is being severely undermined, as falling ticket sales month in, month out have demonstrated, by the raiding of the cookie jar to support programmes that should be funded by the taxpayer? Should he not have met Camelot much earlier than next month?

Richard Caborn: First, credit is due to the John Major Government for introducing the lottery, one of the most successful lotteries in the world. The House ought to reflect from time to time on the amount of damage done to what is now a national institution. Since its inception, #35.8 billion of tickets have been sold, and it has delivered #13.5 billion to good causes. Indeed, 100 of the most deprived local authorities are now receiving nearly half of the lottery moneys that are going out. The attacks on the lottery by the Daily Mail and others, including Members in the House this afternoon, are unfortunate. As I said, everyone in the House can take credit for the introduction of one of the best and most successful lotteries in the world. Papers and individuals—not the entire official Opposition—who undermine its credibility should reflect on the damage that they are doing to a national institution.

Derek Wyatt: When the Select Committee looked at the issue, it found that Camelot would be the best operator, but that Virgin had the best marketing for the lottery. Does my hon. Friend agree that the next time we advertise for the lottery, we should have a not-for-profit operator so that we can have the best operator and the best marketing company?

Richard Caborn: As my hon. Friend knows, we are consulting on the next licensing round. All the points that he made will be factored into the discussions that are under way. It is in everyone's interests to make sure that we get the best deal possible for the lottery and thus the good causes.

Julie Kirkbride: But the Minister recognises that lottery sales are falling worryingly. Despite his protestations in the House this afternoon, they will fall if the public feel that their money is not being spent on causes of which they approve. Will he therefore tell us whether his Department has given any further thought to an idea floated some months ago—that in buying lottery tickets the public could have more discretion about where that money is spent?

Richard Caborn: First, I have just come back from New Zealand, which is experiencing exactly the same problem of a decline in lottery sales. We had those problems before in 1996 and 1997, when lottery figures went down to #4,723 million. We have not reached that low this time and hopefully we will not—hopefully, ticket sales will plateau out and increase again. These things go through a cycle and need to be refreshed from time to time. Indeed, Camelot is doing so by bringing a number of products on to the market, with the support of the Government and the commission. I hope that the British public and Members of Parliament will get behind the lottery; as I said, it is a credit to all political parties.

Media Ownership

John Grogan: If she will make a statement on the Government's policy on whether owners of large shares of the national newspaper market should be able to own terrestrial TV stations.

Tessa Jowell: We will deregulate cross-media ownership to promote investment in growth while retaining the key rules that safeguard a plurality of media voices. The Communications Bill, which is currently in Committee, therefore makes it possible for a large newspaper group to own Channel 5, which at present has only a 6 per cent. audience share and 80 per cent. coverage of the UK. To safeguard plurality, however, we will keep the rule that prevents a large newspaper proprietor buying into ITV which, in contrast to Channel 5, has universal access to a mass audience.

John Grogan: Surely as a representative of the nice party and in the interests of plurality and democracy, my right hon. Friend must be a little worried about giving one man who owns 30 per cent. of our national newspaper market and the dominant satellite subscription system the chance to own Channel 5—a terrestrial channel with no public service obligations—and to cross-promote and hoover up rights, as that would seriously undermine other commercial broadcasters with significant public service roles, such as Channel 3 and Channel 4?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has raised these matters on a number of occasions. He will be aware that the proposals in the Bill are proprietor-neutral. There are clear codes of guidance in relation to cross-promotion, which are currently monitored by the Independent Television Commission and will become the responsibility of Ofcom, once it is established.

Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady believe that the competition aspects of the Bill will be strong enough to deal with the type of scenario that she has just set out?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, precisely because of the balance between deregulation to promote competition and the safeguards to ensure that high-quality programming continues on our screens and radios.

Libraries

Andrew Miller: What progress she has made towards the goal of putting all libraries online.

Richard Caborn: The #100 million lottery-funded people's network programme to connect all UK public libraries to the internet is well on course—4,085 libraries have been connected. There are 69 libraries—39 in England and 30 in Scotland—that have still to be connected. I am pleased to say that that represents a further election pledge that the Labour Government have delivered.

Andrew Miller: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. If he comes to Ellesmere Port library, which, as he knows, is located close to some of the poorest parts of the constituency, he will see the fantastic enthusiasm of, and progress made by, many residents who have had little access to modern technology. Several organisations are helping to train people in the constituency. Training is the biggest gap remaining. Will he add to the commitment that he made by working with colleagues in other Departments to help the training of people from disadvantaged communities?

Richard Caborn: Very much so: we are investing #20 million in a training programme to make sure that the 40,000 staff in UK libraries are information and communications technology-literate and can help the constituents to whom my hon. Friend referred. To give a flavour of the success of the programme, the net corner at Croydon library offers free internet access across a network of 15 personal computers. The corner is in constant use, offering some 1,700 user sessions per week to users who collectively speak 65 languages other than English. The service is opening up a whole new world to them. That is a small example of the scheme's impact across the United Kingdom.

Simon Thomas: As a former librarian, I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in that regard. Does the Minister agree that the next step is to make the resources of public libraries more open and available? It is one thing to have online resources in public libraries, but another to open up their resources and riches to the community at large. May I draw to his attention a project based in my constituency at the National Library of Wales called XGathering the Jewels"? It includes not only libraries but the best resources in museums and other public institutions in Wales, and brings them together on one website with not just information but pictorial representations, maps, sound files, media files and so on. That is surely the way forward. I hope that he will look at the project and consider how it could be rolled out in libraries throughout the UK.

Richard Caborn: I agree. As the hon. Gentleman says, libraries are now much more than they have traditionally been. They are a major resource for the community and open up all sorts of opportunities well beyond the scope of traditional libraries. What hon. Members have described is mirrored across the country by the progressive library service that we have.

Archaeology

Tim Loughton: What steps she is taking to (a) promote archaeological research in the UK and (b) safeguard sites of archaeological interest.

Richard Caborn: The Government are firmly committed to the maintenance of an effective framework of statutory protection for all the elements of the historic environment and widening our understanding of the heritage. Protection measures include a new order extending the definition of treasure and the introduction of portable antiques schemes. The commitment is to introduce a Bill preventing the illicit trade in cultural objectives and a review of our heritage protection legislation framework. English Heritage is developing a research framework both for its own work and for the sector as a whole.

Tim Loughton: The Minister may like to revisit some of the words that he used in that answer because they were wrong. Will he acknowledge that, weekly, important archaeological sites are being lost under the plough or because of new buildings and development? Will he read the new report from the parliamentary archaeological group, taken from a series of hearings held throughout this year, which shows patchy coverage in respect of sites and monuments records, that professional archaeologists have to survive on salaries of #12,000 or #13,000, and that competitive tendering provides the bare minimum for research in many parts of the country? Will he read that report, help to raise the profile of British archaeology and make his contribution by bringing together a much more joined-up approach to archaeology between his Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Education and Skills, so that one of them takes ownership of this subject?

Richard Caborn: The answer is yes, I will read the report.

Deregulation

David Cameron: How many regulations relating to live entertainment and sport her Department has (a) abolished, (b) repealed and (c) withdrawn in the last two years.

Kim Howells: My Department has revoked one regulation relating to the prohibition of live entertainment in casinos. As a result, there is no longer an automatic prohibition to prevent casinos from offering dancing, live music or entertainment.

David Cameron: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is not the revocation of one regulation in the past two years a little disappointing? If his Department is to be the ministry for fun, is it not time for it to do better? As the Government are fond of targets, why do they not have some for getting rid of the bossy regulations that apply to everything from bingo to bookmakers? Will he introduce a moratorium on new regulations, such as those discussed earlier in respect of the Licensing Bill, that could impose new burdens on churches, music teachers and local organisations?

Kim Howells: As a humble Under-Secretary of State, I do not have the money to visit a casino and find out whether deregulation has had the effect that the hon. Gentleman suggests. In introducing the Licensing Bill, we are certainly looking to reduce the burden of regulation wherever possible. Instead of the current plethora of licences, including those for holding entertainment in public houses, there will be only one licence: a premises licence that will include other forms of entertainment and cut cost and bureaucracy. I am sure that he will welcome that.

Gareth Thomas: Will my hon. Friend consider urgently the case for new regulations in sport to help with the possibility of our hosting the Olympic games? Such regulations should be considered, not least because of the huge benefits that the Olympic games would bring for sport, business and regeneration.

Kim Howells: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport will have heard that request.

David Heath: Is it not a triumph of stultifying bureaucracy over freedom of expression that the ludicrous three-in-a-bar rule should be replaced with a none-in-the-bar rule? What on earth has the Minister's Department got against live music?

Kim Howells: It is the two-in-a-bar rule, not the three-in-a-bar rule, but I know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I can assure him that, as a great supporter of live music and especially of some of the brands of music that are sung in pubs in Somerset, I will do all that I can to ensure that such venues are strengthened, not weakened.

Antisocial Behaviour

Linda Gilroy: What plans she has to tackle antisocial behaviour associated with drinking alcohol.

Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to present a Bill on measures to combat antisocial behaviour during this Session, but as the House is aware, we have also recently introduced into the House of Lords a Licensing Bill containing a number of measures designed to tackle alcohol-related and antisocial behaviour. That includes extending the powers of the police to close noisy or disorderly premises and reinforcing and strengthening laws on the purchase and consumption of alcohol by young people under 18.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaign in her constituency on alcohol consumption by children.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the forthcoming measures in the new Bill. She will be aware that her colleagues in the Department of Health have an alcohol harm reduction strategy out to consultation. Will she undertake to consider the early lessons that may emerge in January, before the Bill comes to the House of Commons?

Tessa Jowell: In tackling under-age drinking and the aspects of antisocial behaviour that concern my hon. Friend and, I suspect, the whole House, it will of course be important to consider the conclusions drawn from the work undertaken by the Department of Health with the Prime Minister's strategy unit and to ensure that the Licensing Bill takes them into account. I am also sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to bear those issues in mind in considering the detailed drafting of the Bill on antisocial behaviour.

Mark Field: The Licensing Bill is currently going through the House of Lords. How does the Secretary of State think that the Government's plan to stamp out antisocial drinking is compatible with the idea of 24-hour licensing, which will give a free rein to anyone who wishes to drink in parts of my constituency such as Soho and Covent Garden that are beset by drunken incidents in the early hours of the morning, especially on Saturdays and Sundays?

Tessa Jowell: The Government certainly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on the second point, and we are considering the adequacy of measures to deal with the problem. One reason for our introduction of flexible opening hours for pubs, however, is the current detrimental effect on law and order caused by the presence of large numbers of people on the streets at the same time. Indeed, all the evidence shows that staggered opening hours reduce the number of people staggering out of the pubs.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Political Parties (Grants)

Martin Linton: What discussions he has held with the Electoral Commission about (a) grants to political parties for training, for e-communications and for international work and (b) increased grants for policy development.

Alan Beith: The commission has told us of its intention to launch a project in spring next year to review the existing system for policy development grants. It will consider the case for extending the areas on which those funds can be spent.

Martin Linton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now cross-party support for training, e-communications and international work, and that there was cross-party support for policy development grants during the passage of the Bill that became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000? That gives us the first opportunity for a generation to proceed on a cross-party basis, and extend state funding to areas of party political activity that are generally agreed to be part of the functioning of our democracy.

Alan Beith: Some of those matters are covered by the review, but others may extend beyond the Commission's present responsibilities into the area where, for instance, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy works with the support of grant-in-aid from the Foreign Office. All concerned, however, will have heard the hon. Gentleman's expression of support.

Simon Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is huge support for the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which has supported democracy building in such places as Sierra Leone and the non-EU applicant countries in eastern Europe and elsewhere? Could the Commission examine ways in which we can maximise the benefit of public sector, voluntary sector and party funding to ensure that best practice here and in Europe is spread in other countries that are keen to learn from our experience?

Alan Beith: I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the commission, which is of course aware of the role played by the foundation and the parties themselves in promoting democracy in many parts of the world. That is not the focus of the commission's own responsibilities, but there is obviously experience to be shared.

Kevin Brennan: If there is to be more public funding for the work of political parties, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the commission ways of ensuring that the money is well spent—not least because since 1997, Short money has been increased by 300 per cent. without any discernible improvement in the Tory party's performance?

Alan Beith: I am sure that the commission's chairman is pleased that he does not have to rule on the performance of parties in receipt of Short money. Nor, on this occasion, do I.

CHURCH COMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Clergy Licences

Andrew Selous: What representations he has received from clergy who have not had their licences renewed by their bishops about their financial and employment position.

Stuart Bell: I have not received any such representations from clergy who have not had their licences renewed; neither has the Archbishops Council.

Andrew Selous: What protection does the hon. Gentleman feel the Church should afford to some clergy who, I understand, have had to give up their licences and their vicarages when they have felt that doctrine did not agree with the views held by their bishops?

Stuart Bell: I am always grateful for the opportunity to comment as well as answer a question. In answer to the question, financial assistance may be provided in cases of especial hardship experienced by those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. Most such clergy have their licences renewed or find another post without undue difficulty. However, the Archbishops Council supports improvements to the security of clergy without freehold, and we are now discussing the matter with the Department of Trade and Industry. The Clergy Discipline Measure that comes before the Ecclesiastical Committee next week will doubtless cover it.
	I leave doctrine to others.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend knows that, in recent years, the Church has maintained a steady policy of trying to persuade more clergy to have not freehold but short, temporary licences of between five and seven years. We do not give clergy proper employment rights. Does not that mean that the Church is becoming one of the worst employers in the land?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend should know that better than me, given his past. Off the top of my head, there are approximately 5,000 freehold clergy, 3,000 clergy on contract and 3,000 stipendiary clergy. On employment relations, the ministry is a mission of Christ, as my hon. Friend knows, and it is therefore for the incumbent to owe allegiance to Christ. However, employment relations and employment law are not mutually exclusive and my hon. Friend will be happy to know that we are moving rapidly on employment rights, which are linked to the Clergy Discipline Measure that the Ecclesiastical Committee will consider next week.

Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not the Church of England's policy to abolish the freehold? If so, will he encourage bishops to stop abolishing it by stealth?

Stuart Bell: Again, I am asked to comment rather than answer a specific question. It is not the Church of England's intention to reduce the number of freehold clergy. The position of freehold clergy, contract clergy and stipendiary clergy forms part of the document that we have submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry. It will be available in the House of Commons Library. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and the House will find it positive.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Election Dates

Derek Wyatt: What discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on moving elections to a Sunday.

Alan Beith: None. However, the Electoral Commission stated in its strategic evaluation of the 2002 electoral pilot schemes that it would welcome further pilots of weekend voting or voting over several days, including the weekend, instead of Thursday voting, to test voter preferences.

Derek Wyatt: Who decides when a European election is held—the United Kingdom Government or the European Union? Most Europeans countries hold such elections on a Sunday, but we do not.

Alan Beith: I believe that the United Kingdom decides, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he has the correct information.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Local Authority Licensing

Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of the financial impact of the proposed extension of local authority licensing to church venues; and if he will make a statement.

Stuart Bell: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the Bishop of London's speech in the House of Lords on Second Reading of the Licensing Bill. He highlighted concerns on behalf of churches and cathedrals about the provisions for using places of worship for entertainment such as concerts and plays.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who remains in his place, said that a review is under way. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in making urgent representations to the Under-Secretary, especially on the severe impact that such a licensing system would have on rural churches, which are a centre for many social and cultural activities as well as religious services?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Lady knows that the majority of musical events in her constituency take place in churches and chapels, from York minster to humble parish churches, including her own parish church of Sowerby. She will be encouraged to know that in last week's Committee stages of the Licensing Bill, the Bishop of London tabled an amendment to obviate the difficulties that churches would experience. It was supported in Committee. The Minister for the Arts said that she would consider it and we hope for a positive outcome in the House of Lords.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

E-democracy

Graham Allen: What proposals the Electoral Commission has to use e-democracy to improve low levels of participation.

Alan Beith: I understand that the Electoral Commission recently submitted its response to the Government's consultation paper on a policy for electronic democracy. It welcomed consideration of the role of technology in promoting participation, but underlined that the application of new methods of voting alone could not be relied upon to increase election turnout. The Electoral Commission will continue to evaluate the operation and impact of electronic schemes that were piloted at local elections. It will also use new technologies to support its voter awareness activities when appropriate.

Graham Allen: Every elector can now help us to make better law in this place, in that we can now put pre-legislative scrutiny online. Any electors watching that webcast can e-mail back to us their experiences and views to help to create better law. However, although online pre-legislative scrutiny will be available throughout the United Kingdom—and, indeed, the globe—it is not yet available to hon. Members in this place. We are the last people to be allowed access to it. I know that this is a matter of concern to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he tell the House what he has managed to do to allow Members access to pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills? Will he also commend this example of e-democracy, which will help to tackle some of the problems of low participation by the electorate by allowing them to enter this place and make a genuine contribution to law making?

Alan Beith: I can indeed commend the idea that the hon. Gentleman advocates, but it does not fall within the responsibilities of the Electoral Commission or, indeed, of the Speaker's Committee.

Steve Webb: I notice that my right hon. Friend's response to the question about participation was framed principally in terms of electronic voting. Does he accept that the real problem relates not so much to what happens on the day of a general election as to what happens in the four or five years in between them? Can he ensure that, when the commission considers these issues, it looks more at what happens in between elections than at what happens on polling day?

Alan Beith: Yes, I believe that the commission is very conscious of that issue. Indeed, my reply implied that the mere introduction of other mechanisms for voting will not, by itself, deal with the problem of low voter turnout.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Creative Arts

Robert Key: What assessment the Commissioners have made of the financial impact of the Government's proposal to license the performance of creative arts in places of worship.

Stuart Bell: Figures suggest that, under the Licensing Bill's proposals, churches or other places of worship seeking to provide entertainment five times a year would pay #100 each year. If more events than that were required, a full licence would be needed and annual inspections would be necessary, each of which would attract a fee.

Robert Key: May I invite the hon. Gentleman to stiffen the resolve of the Government to look again at this issue, as the Minister said in the other place last week? For example, the proposals will affect not just a particular church, but any building within the curtilage of that church, as well as open-air events in churchyards. Salisbury cathedral, in my constituency, covers 74 acres, containing three schools, Sarum college, a museum, a conservation centre, a National Trust house, a medieval hall and 150 houses including the deanery and the bishop's house, all of which are used for entertainment and fundraising efforts. The bureaucracy involved in these provisions will surely outweigh the benefit to those collecting the licence fee in terms of tax.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an inventory of Salisbury cathedral. He will be interested to know that 16,250 church buildings belonging to the Church of England alone will be covered by the proposed legislation. Many other denominations and faiths are also affected by the proposals as they stand. I invite the hon. Gentleman, and the Association of English Cathedrals, to write to the appropriate Minister to express their views, as we are doing as Church Commissioners, as the Archbishops Council is doing, and as the Bishop of London has so ably done in Committee in the House of Lords.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that many churches, such as St. Peter's in Burnley, hold many more than five events a year? They do so not only to raise money, but to be part of the community. Such events provide essential community facilities, and we must ensure that that continues.

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend makes a wider point than he imagines, because the Church plays a central role in our local communities—with entertainment and charity events in church halls, for example—and that is to be encouraged. What we are seeing now is a Government who are prepared to listen. Baroness Blackstone has said that she will consider the amendment proposed by the Bishop of London, and we have heard favourable noises from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and her team today. I am, therefore, hopeful that we will get a dispensation not only for churches throughout the country, but for churches in London that are already covered by previous legislation. My hon. Friend's point is well made and is being listened to. We are hopeful of a positive outcome.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Online Voting

Julian Lewis: What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the implications for privacy of voting of the introduction of online voting.

Alan Beith: The commission's evaluation of the May 2002 electoral pilots recognised concerns about the potential loss of privacy for voters involved in remote electronic voting and postal voting. However, the commission also noted that it was unaware of any evidence to suggest that remote voting led to an increase in formal allegations of electoral offences. The commission will continue to monitor closely the implications of remote voting.

Julian Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the reassurance that the commission is aware of the possibilities of abuse, but is it not also the case that the best and most effective forms of abuse are those that are least capable of being detected? If there is good reason for us having separate booths for privacy when we go to the polling stations to cast our vote, surely voting at home online opens up the possibility of undetected fraud whereby pressure is put on some members of a family to vote en bloc in a way that they might not in the privacy of the polling booth.

Alan Beith: One way to ensure that such pressure is not found too often is to make choice available to the electors as to how they cast their vote. Choice is one of the concepts that the commission has sought to encourage in its pilots so that people are not required to vote in ways that limit privacy.

European Council (Copenhagen)

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council that took place in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 December. Negotiations were successfully concluded to admit to membership 10 countries from eastern and central Europe, and Cyprus and Malta. We hope that Romania and Bulgaria will be ready to follow in 2007.
	Today, we take it for granted that the 10 countries are all democratic nations living by the same values as the rest of Europe, but for anyone who remembers the Hungarian uprising of 1956, the Prague spring of 1968 or the imposition of military rule in Poland in 1981, the transformation of those countries from tyranny to democracy and now to full European Union membership is a huge achievement of which Europe and Britain can be justly proud.
	We have long been the champions of European enlargement. The negotiations for membership began during the British presidency of the EU in 1998, and I should like to pay tribute particularly to the Danish presidency and the Commission, which brought the negotiations to a successful conclusion.
	Details of the final package are annexed to the conclusions of the meeting. Membership will bring immediate economic benefits to the candidates. It will create a single market of 450 million people. Our trade has increased nearly 10 times as fast with those new countries as with the rest of the world, and 14,000 UK firms now export to east and central Europe. Membership of the EU will boost the gross domestic product of those countries by nearly 1.5 per cent., and our own by up to nearly #2 billion.
	The new member states are countries that have only recently rediscovered their national identity. They, like us, will want the further integration of the Union to be firmly rooted in the democratic accountability of the nation state. They shall be our allies in developing a European Union on those lines.
	For some time, Turkey has been knocking on the door of the European Union. The response of the Union has rightly been to encourage a closer economic and political relationship, but to say that full membership would be possible only when Turkey met the necessary human rights criteria.
	In the past year, Turkey has made enormous strides by abolishing the death penalty and adopting a range of human rights laws. The new Turkish Government have promised a detailed legislative timetable to accelerate that progress. I believe that it is massively in our interests to see Turkey as a modern democratic partner in Europe. For that reason, I have been urging our partners to offer Turkey a date to open negotiations for membership, provided that the so-called Copenhagen criteria are met. I am pleased to report to the House that that was achieved in Copenhagen.
	The Commission will report on Turkey's progress and if, in December 2004, on a recommendation from the Commission, the European Council decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, accession negotiations with Turkey will open without delay. That agreement has contributed to a better climate on the long-standing Cyprus dispute. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and his special representative, Mr. De Soto, have been tireless in their efforts, as has our own special representative, Lord Hannay. A settlement remains within reach. I urge all parties to continue their efforts to find a comprehensive settlement, which would allow a reunited Cyprus to join the European Union, as set out in the conclusions of the European Council.
	We were also able to resolve differences between Turkey and Greece that have delayed the agreement between the European Union and NATO necessary to allow the implementation of a European security and defence policy. We have now established the essential linkage with NATO, which means that where NATO is not involved the European Union can undertake peacekeeping operations using NATO planning, with the option of using NATO headquarters and NATO assets as well. As a result, the European Union stands ready to take over the military operation in Macedonia, in consultation with NATO, and to lead a military operation in Bosnia following SFOR.
	The European Council issued a declaration on the middle east in advance of the Quartet ministerial meeting in Washington. The Quartet brings together the European Union, the United States, Russia and the United Nations, and its meeting on 20 December will take us a further step forward. In the short term, progress on the Israeli side will be limited by the general election campaign in Israel. However, I believe that we should use the intervening period to maximise the chances of successful implementation of the road map once a new Israeli Government are in place.
	That means continuing to do what we can to secure an end to violence, and to reverse the deteriorating humanitarian situation. It also means ensuring that Palestinian reform is effective. To that end, I can announce today that I am inviting leading Palestinians to come to Britain in January for a conference, along with members of the Quartet and other countries from the region closely involved in supporting the reform effort. The participants will discuss progress on reform and consider how the international community can help. It is in the interests of Palestinians and Israelis that the reform efforts succeed, so that we can make a reality of President Bush's vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
	The European Council also issued a declaration on Iraq, giving its full and unequivocal support for Security Council resolution 1441 and urging Iraq to seize this final opportunity to comply with its international obligations.
	Finally, we speak against the background of serious problems confronting our fishing industry. In the past 30 years, cod stocks in the North sea have fallen from 250,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes. If fishing continues at the present rate there is a risk of there being no viable cod fishing industry left. That is why the European Commission has suggested a reduction in fishing of 80 per cent., to enable the cod stock to recover to its absolute minimum viable level. Scientists believe that the safe minimum is 150,000 tonnes.
	We share the objective of enabling fish stocks to recover, but we believe that much more moderate measures could deliver recovery while maintaining a viable industry. I have talked extensively both with the President of the Commission at Copenhagen and with Commissioner Fischler previously. Fisheries Ministers are now meeting in Brussels to reach agreement on the issue.
	The UK fishing industry has benefited over the past year from #36 million of funding to support adjustment through decommissioning. This includes the Scottish Executive's action to help preserve fish stocks and ensure the industry's long-term viability with a #27 million aid package. If there are further cuts arising from the ongoing negotiations in Brussels, the UK Government and the Scottish Executive stand ready to help the fishing communities affected. I will meet leaders of the industry in the new year, and financial assistance will be made available if necessary, but the priority for now must be to get a fair deal for our fishing industry.
	The summit was a remarkable achievement. It redefines the future shape of Europe. It describes a future in which Europe is reunited, a Europe of proud and sovereign nation states, working together economically, socially and politically in their common interest. The prospect of Turkey's membership has even more dramatic implications. A nation that borders the Arab world, that is Muslim, that is none the less striking out on a path leading to liberal democracy, is set in time to join the traditional nations of Europe.
	The implications for the future of Europe are profound. In time, all these new countries will be part of the European economy, part of monetary union, part of European defence, part of the European political system. For us in Britain, the implications are equally profound. It is our job to be part of the new Europe that is developing, to be a leading power within it and to understand the degree to which our national interest is bound up with it. Isolation from Europe in this new world is absolute folly. That is why we shall continue to fight for our interests, but recognise that they are best served inside the European Union, not on its margins.

Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him in welcoming the conference that he has apparently announced today for leading Palestinian reformers, involving representatives of the EU, the UN, Russia and the United States. We will await more details on that before dealing with it in detail ourselves.
	This historic summit is a tribute to the long, hard and sometimes lonely battles fought by successive British Governments to extend the benefits of EU membership to the former communist states of central and eastern Europe. Like the Prime Minister, I, too, congratulate the Danish presidency and in particular Prime Minister Rasmussen, who has been a diligent and honest broker for a working settlement on enlargement. However, I think that I speak for many on both sides of the House, as well as for millions elsewhere in Europe, when I express my regret at how long enlargement has taken. As the Prime Minister knows, for all British Governments it is 13 years since the Berlin wall came down: 13 years of excluding central and eastern European countries from western European markets, all because Brussels insisted on full compliance with social legislation. Only now has the EU lived up to its obligations; as I have said, it was successive British Governments who tried to lead the way. Enlargement may be the European Union's finest hour, but its delay reveals the vested interests in parts of the EU with which we have become all too familiar.
	The Copenhagen summit showed a side to the Franco-German axis with which the Prime Minister is also becoming all too familiar. Back in October in Brussels, he was outflanked by France and Germany when they delayed common agricultural policy reform—a move that will greatly increase the cost of EU membership to accession states and to existing member states alike. Last week in Copenhagen, he was again outflanked—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Iain Duncan Smith: Last week in Copenhagen, the Prime Minister was again outflanked by France and Germany over membership negotiations for Turkey. The Turks wanted them to start before the current round of enlargement was implemented, and they were supported not just by the UK Government, but by the Spanish, the Italians and even the Greeks. Yet, once again, France and Germany prevailed. Negotiations have been delayed until December 2004—well after enlargement will have been completed.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that those actions by France and Germany have been to the detriment of the European Union? Does he also agree that it is imperative that we encourage Turkey, as a NATO ally and as a secular, democratic Muslim nation, to play a full role in the European Union at the earliest possible opportunity? We are constantly urging the benefits of democracy on the Islamic world, yet here is the EU telling Turkey that she must prove her intentions all over again. Does not the Prime Minister think that direct negotiations would provide the strongest possible incentive for Turkey to meet the highest standards on human rights? Does he also agree that negotiations would provide the ideal opportunity to ensure that Cyprus—now to be an EU member itself—became a united island again? Was not the decision to delay these negotiations a snub for the Government of Turkey and for all those nations that supported her?
	The Prime Minister says that the Euro army has reached an agreement with NATO that will allow it to use the alliance's planning, assets and headquarters. This, he said, means that the Euro army Xstands ready" to take over military operations in Macedonia. Is that not in fact an admission that the Euro army should have been inside NATO all along? Now we have the rather ridiculous sight of the Prime Minister pretending that the EU has no military competence other than NATO deciding what it will or will not do. Surely the Government's position on this throughout has been seen for what it is—baseless and solely part of a wider negotiation with France.
	Last week I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to raise the severe proposed cuts to British fishing quotas. There was not one word about the common fisheries policy in the presidency's conclusions. That seems strange, given that before Copenhagen the Prime Minister wrote that Scottish fishermen would have the Government's full backing
	Xright to the very top".
	According to today's statement, that amounted to the Prime Minister holding a conversation with Romano Prodi on the margins of the Copenhagen summit. With 40,000 jobs at stake on the basis of a contested scientific report, Britain's fishing community surely deserves better than just a conversation. Instead, it seems that the Government fully accepted that further savage cuts would be necessary. Why did the Prime Minister not force discussion of the fundamental issues of the CFP on to the table, as would have been required? It seems doubly strange that the conclusions refer to Spanish fishermen and Portuguese farmers, whose concerns were raised and registered at the same summit, whereas our fishermen have been left out.
	The Prime Minister is right: this ought to have been a truly historic moment for our continent, when the cold war divisions were replaced with a new European settlement on prosperity, stability and mutual co-operation. Instead, all too often, the EU élites, to which he never refers, are bent on creating some sort of superpower. The common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, which the Prime Minister simply fails to sort out, are left unreformed as part of wider discussions. The forces of old Europe seem reluctant to let go: making them do so will take more than the Prime Minister talking tough before meetings and backing down after he has been there.

Tony Blair: Where does one begin, Mr. Speaker? First, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the enlargement process has been a great setback for the European Union is bizarre. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but he effectively said that it was disgraceful that it had taken so long. I think that it is remarkable that, 13 years after the Berlin wall fell, we have managed to get 10 countries into the European Union.

Michael Ancram: My right hon. Friend welcomed it.

Tony Blair: If I may say so, it was a slightly grudging welcome. Given the interests at stake, it is a remarkable tribute to the vitality of the European Union that these countries have been accepted. The Leader of the Opposition had to make this attack because at the very time when a large part of the Conservative party is queueing up to get out, this other lot is queueing up to get in.
	As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about Turkey, what happened was not to do with the French and German objections. It is correct that Britain, Italy, Spain and probably Greece would have gone further, but many countries were deeply hesitant about whether Turkey could fulfil the criteria. The key was to get a date, and we have got a date. It could have been a few months earlier, but it is, again, a tremendous step forward in Europe's relations with Turkey. Although I am a huge supporter of Turkey's membership of the European Union, there are issues to do with human rights that must be addressed. It is important that we address them and that Turkey's new leadership, who are really trying to address the issues, are given time to do so properly. It is churlish to suggest that the European Union was snubbing us or snubbing Turkey. Given where we were, it is a big step forward.
	On European defence, the whole point about Macedonia is that NATO does not wish to be involved. That is why it is sensible for European defence, using the full support of NATO, to do it. The reason that it is so important to have European defence—but on the right basis, fully consistent with NATO—is precisely because there may be situations when, for whatever reason, NATO does not want to be involved. It is important, therefore, that Europe has the capability to do that for itself. The British Conservative party is against European defence, but even America now supports it as the right way forward for Europe and for NATO.
	The most disastrous thing that we could do in respect of the CFP would be to adopt what I assume is now the policy of the Conservative party and withdraw from it. That would give us no protection whatsoever. It would not actually stop cod stocks being fished before they migrate to British waters—it would not actually help our fishermen at all. We must recognise that there is a huge problem. We are fighting hard to get the best deal possible, but it is a cruel deception to pretend to the fishing industry either that there is not an issue or that there is some simple solution—neither is correct.
	As for the Leader of the Opposition's statement that with the Conservative party we should get a better deal in Europe, I do not know of a Conservative party—it will be interesting to see whether Opposition Members can name one—anywhere else in Europe, in the existing EU, in the countries that are about to join or in countries that may join later, that supports the completely foolish, backward and isolationist policy of the British Conservative party.

Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him in congratulating the successful Danish presidency.
	Judging from the House's reaction to the remarks of the leader of the Conservative party, it widely shares the view that we felt no sense of history when the right hon. Gentleman described a time of such historic groundbreaking achievement for Europe and for the spread of democracy, stability, peace and security across the continent as 13 wasted years. I thought that that referred to a different period in history relating to the Conservative party.
	None the less, the 18 years of unbroken Conservative Government in this country certainly helped to build the single European market. It helped to extend qualified majority voting—thanks to Mrs. Thatcher and the Conservative party—and it even helped to pave the way for the enlargement process on which Conservative Members seem to be trying to pour cold water today. They have no sense of history and even less sense of the future—that is the Conservative party.
	Given that some of the continuing entrenched aspects of the common agricultural policy have become even more entrenched as a result of some of the decisions that were reached at the summit, what prospect does the Prime Minister see, with enlargement ahead of us, of achieving the genuine, long-term reform of the CAP that is inevitable, desirable and will come about only if our country plays its full part at the top table of Europe? It will not be achieved on the country club membership basis advocated by certain people.
	Would not Britain's hand in Europe be strengthened more generally if we showed greater political resolve on the single European currency? Increasingly, we risk marginalising ourselves, as well as suffering domestic economic disadvantage, due to continuing uncertainty about a referendum and about the Government's long-term political commitment on the issue.
	I welcome the decision reached about Turkey. It is important that over the next two years there is full and active engagement with the Turkish authorities—not least as regards human rights—to ensure that as and when accession negotiations with Turkey are held, they are based on stability and dependable understanding as regards not only the commitment of the Turkish democratic authorities to Europe itself, but the need to maintain the fundamental values of human rights that Europe enshrines and to which we are signatories.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that it does not help intelligent discussion of matters European in this country to speak in a completely misleading fashion, bandying about such shorthand terms as XEuro army"? In fact, there is a strategic and sensible basis on which NATO and the EU can co-operate when they want to do so or whereby they can pursue different or varying agendas when that is the most sensible course. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that message from the summit, following the most recent NATO discussions, is welcome and must be the sane way forward?
	Fisheries are a major concern to many of our communities, not least those in Scotland, so I welcome today's statement from the Commission that it wishes to defer decisions on quotas for a further three months. In his discussions with the leaders of the fishing representatives after the turn of the year, will the Prime Minister take every opportunity to carry them with him on the discussions that must ensue about the scientific evidence? The fact that our domestic fleet has already made a good contribution must be recognised in Brussels to a greater and more sensitive extent than it has been so far.
	Finally, I welcome the Palestine conference, which the Prime Minister has announced today, but will he underscore the need for Europe to be seen to be contributing to restarting the middle east peace process? Will he acknowledge that it would be appropriate for the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary to make a statement before the recess about any possible British troop deployments vis-a-vis Iraq during the parliamentary recess?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about enlargement. It is worth pointing out that Britain has always done best in Europe when it has been engaged. Although, of course, the Conservative party's history in Europe when it was in office has been somewhat rewritten, the fact is that Mrs. Thatcher was engaged in Europe for the first seven or eight years of her premiership, and the Conservatives were responsible for putting through the single market proposals. It is important to realise that, in the end, they were a lot more sensible then than they are now, and perhaps the same could be said of us.
	The key is to ensure that we carry on getting the best possible deal for Britain. That is also true in relation to CAP reform. The leader of the Conservative party was quite wrong. CAP reform was not blocked at the Brussels summit. Indeed, the disagreement was about over insistence that the mid-term review should go back into the conclusions of the Brussels summit, so the agriculture reform programme continues, as the Commissioner indicated a few days ago.
	The right hon. Gentleman knows that the position on the euro has not changed. I agree with what he says about Turkey. On the CFP, I also agree that it is important that we try to work out the very best deal that we can possibly secure for our fishing industry, recognising that there is a genuine problem. I simply say that people who complain that the Government are not doing enough but refuse to recognise that a fundamental issue has to be tackled—whoever was in government would have to tackle it—are not doing a service to the Scottish fishing industry because they are pretending that there is an easy solution when there is not one.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right about European defence. The benefit of engagement is absolutely clear. The tragedy is that if we were not engaged as a country in the debate about European defence, it would not mean that European defence would not take place; it would simply mean that it would take place without us.

Andrew MacKinlay: Is it not a fact that, for many people in central Europe, what has been agreed this weekend will represent a remedy to the great outrage of Munich and to the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939? Is it not a great tragedy that the great statesman from Chingford cannot rejoice about the fact that the sacrifice of those 17 per cent. of the few who fought above this place, recklessly in our interests as well as theirs, will have the satisfaction that their countries will come into the family of European nations?
	May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will now ensure that the United Kingdom Government and those in our commerce and industry go on an offensive to ensure that we get in on the markets of the new member states? Under the Labour Government, Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry have been insufficiently in attendance in those countries, and I hope that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tony Blair: I am sure that we will make every effort in that regard. Important commercial opportunities will exist for our business and industry. Those countries that will come into the European Union under enlargement will offer tremendous opportunities for our companies and we must ensure that we seize them.

Patrick Cormack: In welcoming much of the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask why there was no mention of Zimbabwe? Was not the plight of southern Africa in general, and the terrible fate awaiting Zimbabwe in particular, raised during the summit? We were assured by a Foreign Office Minister last week, in an appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee, that it would be raised. Why was it not?

Tony Blair: It was discussed at the Foreign Ministers meeting. I say again to the hon. Gentleman—I know that he feels passionately about this issue, as everybody does—that we must have the specific remedies that will work in this situation.

Joyce Quin: I welcome enlargement, which is a tremendous cause for celebration. Given the impressive and widespread use of English in many of the enlargement countries, will my right hon. Friend lead an effort across Government not only to encourage industry to take opportunities in the new market, but to increase public awareness in Britain of the significance of this historic achievement?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on this matter, and I know that she has done a lot of work on it. It is interesting, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pointed out to me, that of the 13 countries to come in under this enlargement or to come in subsequently, 12 gave their addresses in the English language.

Douglas Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when in Copenhagen, he discussed with other Heads of Government their support for military action against Iraq? Can he tell us how many are so persuaded of the moral case for war, as against a legal cover afforded by the Security Council resolution, that they are prepared to pledge troops and assets in a military deployment?

Tony Blair: Of course the issue was raised and discussed on the margins of the summit with many countries. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all the countries to which I talked are fully in support of the UN resolution and recognise that if there is a breach of that resolution by Saddam, action should follow. Whether they participate or not is up to them.

Keith Vaz: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the personal role that he has played in the enlargement process? As well as being a champion for enlargement, will he continue to be a champion for reform, and ensure that the points that he set out in his joint letter with Chancellor Schröder of 25 February this year, which will see the reform of the European Union, are followed? We will have a Europe of 25 nations. I know how much he enjoys these summits, but with 25 countries at a summit, it is very important that it should be as efficient and as effective as possible.

Tony Blair: Likewise I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and all that he did when he was Minister for Europe to push forward the process of enlargement, which was important. Secondly, in relation to the Council and the Convention, one of the interesting things is that when we talk, in the European Convention, about the reform process in Europe, most people recognise that we must make fundamental changes in the way that Europe works. It was interesting that when President Giscard d'Estaing addressed the Council he made it clear that we had to strengthen all parts of the European Union, including the European Council.

Kenneth Clarke: Will the Prime Minister accept whatever share of the credit is his due for the success of the Copenhagen summit? Will he agree, however, that probably the lion's share of the credit should go to the Danish President of the Commission, who is, I believe, the political ally of the British Conservative party—[Interruption.] He is a Danish Conservative. Would the Prime Minister agree that that underlines the special urgency of achieving institutional reform of the European Union within the next 12 months, during which it will be decided whether we can have a better decision-making process for 25 member states than we have at the moment for 15?
	Does the Prime Minister intend to stick to his principles of a clear leadership of the Council of Ministers, a clear leadership role within the Union for the Council of Ministers, intergovernmental approaches to foreign and security policy rather than the Community method, and greater democracy at the same time? Does he think that he can achieve all that? Will the new members be on his side or not in the difficult negotiations over the next 12 months?

Tony Blair: I certainly pay tribute to the Danish President. I agree that the negotiations were conducted superbly by him, but he is actually President of the Council, not the Commission. I do not know whether he is an ally of this Conservative leader—but who knows whether he may not be an ally of any other Conservative leader.
	I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's other points. The proper red lines for our national interest in the convention are that we have the Council able to play its full role and that it is properly organised. In our judgment, there cannot be a Communitisation of the common foreign and security policy. We have to make sure that we increase the democratic accountability of the European Union.
	I entirely agree about the new members of the EU. After all, these states fought to be nations again. I said in my statement that they had rediscovered their national identity, but they have always had their national identity. What they have not had is the opportunity to express it. These countries will be our allies in the EU, which is why it is important that they see us playing our full part in the EU and are not at its margins.

Wayne David: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a truly historic summit that was good for Britain and for the whole European continent. However, will he use his good offices to apply pressure to the Turkish Government who, in turn, should apply pressure on the Turkish Cypriots to come to an agreement for the unification of the whole of the island under the Kofi Annan plan?

Tony Blair: I hope very much that all sides in the Cyprus negotiations take them forward constructively. There is no point in my entering into the details now, but the United Nations proposal is an immensely clever and intelligent proposal that offers a way forward. I still believe that it is possible for the countries to come to an agreement. For years and years, as a result of disagreements between Turkey and Greece, many of these issues have been held up. However, what is interesting about this summit and the way it took place is that Greece was in favour of Turkey being given an even earlier date for the opening of accession negotiations. A few years ago, I would have been surprised to have been told that such a change would happen now.

Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister mentioned cod stocks. However, he must be aware that, on the same scientific measurement, whiting and haddock stocks are at their highest for a generation and that they will be caught up in the same draconian cuts by the European Commission. Does that not indicate that time is required to come up with a management plan that conserves fish without provoking the economic destruction of entire coastal communities? The Prime Minister seemed surprised to find out that that view was emerging this afternoon in the talks. Will he now put his weight behind it and ask for a delay for pause and for thought, instead of rushing headlong to disaster over the next few days?

Tony Blair: Of course that is precisely what we are trying to do. All that I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman and to anyone else who has raised the issue is that we have to recognise that we will be fighting for the interests of the Scottish and UK fishing industry against the background of heavily depleted cod stocks. I agree that that is not the only issue, but it is important to recognise that it is the case. We will strive to get the very best deal that we possibly can, and that is precisely what Ministers are now engaged upon in Brussels.

Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this historic and marvellous achievement has been brought about by work done by many people over many years to create pluralistic democratic societies in central and eastern Europe? Does he agree that the job is not yet complete? Other European states still wish to join the EU, so can we ensure that, over the next few years, we continue to give support for pluralistic civil society and democracy building in countries to the east of the existing EU?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the work that he has done over many years to encourage countries that are now applicant countries and countries that may become applicant countries to improve their democracy. I have no doubt at all that, in years to come, for countries in the Balkan region, in particular, EU membership will be the same magnet for change and reform as European membership has been for the 10 accession countries now. It is extraordinary how much change they have managed to undertake in a short time, but they have managed to undertake it only because there has been the goal and the vision of EU and NATO membership to aim for.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Prime Minister agree on the need for a fair and balanced public debate in the candidate countries, especially in the run-up to their referendums on membership, to ensure genuine public support? If so, would he end the practice of EU budget funding for one side of the debate in those countries? Will he look into the known and documented abuses that have taken place and ensure that public money, some of which comes from this country, is not used in that partial way?

Tony Blair: There are rules that have to be followed, and they should be followed. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a sceptic about enlargement, but I think that European enlargement is of fundamental importance to our future peace and stability. As I said, there are rules in Europe. We are not pressing for changes, but any of those rules that are in existence have to be followed properly.

Jane Griffiths: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and all involved on achieving the historic outcome of the European Council? He will know that as each country has acceded to the European Union since 1973, British exports to them have surged. Does he agree that the economic and political future of Europe looks good for Britain and casts the carpers, nit-pickers and isolationists into the outer darkness where they belong?

Tony Blair: There is no doubt that British companies have done well as a result of enlargement. We have increased our exports to those countries by something like 10 times. Those people who are hesitant about the benefits of enlargement fail to understand that in the end we all benefit from a more prosperous Europe. Every time the European Union has enlarged, there has been increased prosperity for existing EU members as well as for the new ones.

David Curry: As the Prime Minister says, this enlargement is merely the prelude to a new enlargement, and we can easily envisage 32 or 33 states in the European Union; but that further enlargement towards the Balkans will raise even more difficult questions because it will introduce income disparities of a factor of 10 between the richest and the poorest members. It is therefore essential that the union begin at an early stage to help the states prepare for membership. What does the Prime Minister think should be done about that? Where does he think that the eastern and south-eastern borders of the European Union properly lie?

Tony Blair: In respect of the latter point, it is important that we encourage Balkan countries to move towards the prospect of European Union membership. As the right hon. Gentleman implies, that is obviously some way off, and the income disparity is very great. In the meantime, however, the European Union has conducted agreements with most of those countries—in fact, probably all of them—to help them in that process. Again, the advantages for us are immense. This is the first period for years and years—other than during the appalling domination of the old Soviet bloc—when those countries seem to be reaching towards some sort of stability. We have got to encourage that. The way to do it is to help them financially, which the European Union is doing, and also to start, over time, to offer them a more obvious path to European integration.

Gerald Kaufman: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on the indispensable role that he played at Copenhagen which resulted, among many other achievements, in the accession of two Commonwealth countries to the European Union and in the Turkish timetable, may I thank him for convening the conference with the Palestinians in London next month? May I also thank him for his courage in meeting the President of Syria, as the hazards of peace are much preferable to the death and danger of war?

Tony Blair: I hope that we can make real progress on political reform. After all, we are only going to get the peace process moving again in the middle east if the right elements are in place. One key element is the political reform process in the Palestinian Authority, and I very much look forward to discussing that with those who will come and contribute to the meeting. I have no doubt that it is better to engage with countries and try to bring them towards the peace process than to isolate them.

Andrew MacKay: The Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that it is massively in our interests for Turkey to join us as a democratic partner in Europe. Was he not just a little saddened that at an otherwise excellent summit, where so many countries from central Europe joined the European Union, Turkey's application was so badly delayed owing to the behaviour of Germany and France? Will he redouble his efforts to get that application moved forward because, as he knows, Turkey's human rights record is considerably better than that of some of the later applicant countries now entering the EU?

Tony Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman had asked me a week ago whether I thought it likely that we would get a firm date for opening the accession negotiations, I would have been doubtful, so we have come a long way in the last few days. It was not only France and Germany that took the position to which he referred. That may be common myth, as many of these things are. In fact that position was taken by France, Germany and probably a significant number of the other countries. It was we, along with the Italians, the Spanish and the Greeks, who argued for a more forward position for Turkey.
	Those negotiations are two years away. [Interruption.] The process will start without delay. During our presidency, we began accession negotiations almost immediately, so it is possible that, in this process, Turkey's accession negotiations will start in two years. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Turkey has made great strides forward, but this is still a pretty good timetable. It is not quite as good as we would have liked, but as people in Turkey reflect on it, they will see that after 40 years of trying to get a firm date, they now have one, and it is only two years away.

Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister would have been justified in making more of the progress made on the European security and defence policy and the way in which the EU and NATO can work together. When it comes to further negotiations on Turkey, may I have his reassurance that we will have objective assessment criteria, such as the Copenhagen criteria, not ones based on the desire of some people in Europe to maintain a European Union of Christian countries?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. The important thing is that the Copenhagen criteria on political and human rights are clear, and we should follow them without fear or favour, treating Turkey exactly the same as any other country. It has no desire to be treated as a special member of the club. One of the great potential benefits of Turkey's membership of the EU is the notion that Europe can welcome in a nation that is predominantly Muslim, especially as almost all EU nations—including certainly our country and many other large countries—already have a significant Muslim population.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the first presidency of the enlarged European Union in 2004 will be a very important job? Will he therefore be allowing his name to go forward?

Tony Blair: Thank you—I am very happy being the British Prime Minister.

James Plaskitt: My right hon. Friend was surely right to describe the agreement as redefining the European Union. The EU will be much larger but it will also be very different. Does he agree that the young democracies coming in from the east should be joining state-of-the-art democratic institutions, not ones that are in many cases 40 years old and prone to democratic deficit? Will he use enlargement to help to speed up the process of reform?

Tony Blair: Yes, it is extremely important that we do so because there is no way Europe can function effectively as a Union of 25 or, as some have pointed out, perhaps 30 countries with the existing rules. The only point that I would make is that people often see this as a battle between the Council, the intergovernmental approach, and the Commission, the Community approach. In fact, we need to strengthen both. We need a strong, independent Commission to drive through processes such as economic reform, but we also need a strong Council, able to handle the management of the affairs of 25 or more nations, to give the EU a strong external voice and to set the agenda for Europe.

John Wilkinson: Did the French President express appreciation both of the Prime Minister's sycophantic eulogy to him in Paris Match and of the fact that the British Prime Minister should take refugees from Sangatte? Why did the Prime Minister not include in his statement any comment about the immigration implications of enlargement? Why have the British Government decided to waive a transition period on immigration from countries coming into the European Union?

Tony Blair: First, the President did express appreciation of that eulogy in Paris Match, and I received it gratefully. Secondly, of course we take seriously immigration issues to do with enlargement. However, we took the right decision in being forward—after all, we have been forward on the whole enlargement process. My advice is that that does not pose a great problem for us, and it is far more important to make sure that the enlargement process goes through in those countries. Many of them, such as Poland, will be fighting referendums on that issue, and it is important that they succeed.

Dennis Skinner: Just a word of caution after the cheering has ended. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when those visionaries way back in the early 1970s took part in that historic vote to take us into the Common Market, we were promised economies of scale and that we would be able to compete with the rest? If we joined the six, we were told, it would be wonderful. We had the same thing with the Single European Act and Maastricht. When the Union was enlarged to 15, we were told we would be able to trade more effectively. In all that time, they have never bought a cobble of coal from Britain, even though it is the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe.
	What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me that 450 million people in the enlarged Europe will change their ways and buy British goods? Our manufacturing industries have been going to the wall throughout that period. A fortnight ago, the balance of trade deficit was the largest ever. At some point, that must end. All I say to my right hon. Friend is that the summit can be historic in many ways, but it ain't been all that good for people here who are working at the sharp end.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend knows of my admiration for his general political perspectives on these things—

Dennis Skinner: Unlike the Opposition, I never change my mind.

Tony Blair: Perhaps we can leave that aside for a moment.
	If we were outside the European Union, that would not help our industry. In fact, tariffs would be imposed on our goods going into Europe. My hon. Friend is right that we need to knock down a lot of barriers that still exist—that is extremely important. However, we are better placed to do so if we are inside rather than outside.
	Finally, someone famously asked what good has come out of Europe in the past 50 years. I would say peace, security—they are important—and rising prosperity for years and years.

Julian Lewis: NATO.

Tony Blair: Yes, of course NATO has played a part, but the European Union has too—[Interruption.] Now I am told that Europe has done nothing in the past 50 years. I know that the alternative leadership has left the Chamber, but I simply tell the Conservative party that until it adopts a sensible attitude on Europe, it will find itself a long way from office.

Bain Report

John Prescott: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of the fire service.
	This morning Sir George Bain published his final report, XReducing Risk, Saving Lives". I am sure that the House will want to join me in thanking Sir George and his team—Sir Michael Lyons and Sir Tony Young—for an excellent piece of work and for delivering it on time, as promised. The House will recall that the review's terms of reference were to make recommendations on the future organisation and management of the fire service, and in that context, to look at pay and conditions.
	The report recalls that there have been seven or eight major reviews of the fire service going back more than 20 years. As Sir George acknowledges, many of the recommendations contained in those reviews are repeated in the Bain report. However, the report concludes that
	Xwhat will really make the difference this time is putting those reforms into practice. That is a challenge which must not be evaded again."
	The report describes a service where legislation is out of date, management practice is out of date, and the rules and regulations that govern the overall framework and the day-to-day work of the fire service are old-fashioned and restrictive. It says that despite the best efforts of the firefighters, the
	Xfact is that too many people in this country die in fires and the number of fires is currently increasing each year".
	The report states that the UK has not been as successful as other countries in fire prevention. It concludes that what is needed now is a new system where there is far greater emphasis on preventing fires, and which ensures that the deployment of people and equipment means that they are in the right place at the right time to protect lives.
	The report's first and most fundamental recommendation is to move to a system of targeted fire cover that is based on a careful, professional assessment of the real risk of incidents in each local area. At present, fire cover is based on rigid targets for a set number of appliances to attend an incident within a set time. Those targets are defined by property characteristics, rather than the risk to life. The targets apply day and night, during the week and at weekends, irrespective of the predictable daily changes to the level of incidents actually taking place. In the most extreme example, the targets lead to the situation in the City of London where there are the same number of firefighters on duty at night, when there are just 5,000 overnight residents, as during the day, when there are 500,000 people working in the area. That is not the most effective deployment of resources. But above all, as the Bain report concludes:
	XThe existing framework of risk categorisation does not reflect known risk factors. It directs resources away from areas and population groups at most risk."
	Secondly, the report makes recommendations on better collaborative working. At present, there are 47 fire authorities in England. They rarely work in partnership. Better collaboration between fire authorities, and between fire authorities and other emergency services, is common sense and would be more efficient. In Wales, for example, bureaucracy has been cut by reducing the number of brigades from eight to three, with no reduction in the number of fire stations or fire engines.
	Thirdly, the report makes recommendations on working practices, where the fire service has fallen well behind other public services. This includes dealing with the fact that only 1.5 per cent. of firefighters are drawn from the ethnic minorities, only 1.7 per cent. of firefighters are women, and only 2 per cent. of firefighters are graduates. The report concludes that urgent action is required to tackle these problems.
	In addition to these important recommendations for the fire authorities and the fire service, there is a raft of equally important recommendations for the Government. The Bain report recommends the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Section 19 means that any reduction in the number of fire appliances or firefighting posts, or closure of any fire station, requires the Secretary of State's consent. That situation places detailed control of the fire service in Whitehall and makes modernisation on the ground far more difficult.
	The report recommends primary and secondary legislation to modernise the fire service institutions; to deal with the difficulties arising from the discipline regulations, and the appointment and promotion regulations; and to bring fire authorities' statutory duties in line with a modernised fire service. The report also makes recommendations to improve the inspection and delivery of services, and to establish a new central organisation to drive forward the process of modernisation.
	Many of the report's recommendations to the Government will require detailed consideration, but we have been looking at these issues for some time and we have given further detailed consideration since the publication of the interim Bain position paper on 11 November. Today, with the publication of the final Bain report, I can set out the steps that the Government will take to put into effect the Bain recommendations.
	First, the Government accept the recommendation to repeal section 19 of the 1947 Act and we will do so at the earliest opportunity, as requested. Secondly, we accept in principle the report's recommendations for legislation to modernise the fire service, to improve inspection and delivery of services and to set up a new central body to drive forward modernisation. Thirdly, I am committing the Government to produce a White Paper on the fire service in the spring in order to fulfil our part of the programme of modernisation. The White Paper will set out in detail the legislative and other changes required.
	That is a clear programme of reform that will be taken forward immediately and will sustain the drive to modernise the framework in which the fire service operates. My guiding principle will be to transform the fire service into a modern emergency fire and rescue service focused on the safety of people and communities. That is what modernisation is about. Some of it will save money, but some of it will cost money, including, for example, training in basic life support skills and providing life-saving equipment for firefighters. The primary objective will be to improve the safety of the public and create a fire service that can deliver the highest standards.
	The modernisation of the fire service forms part of the Government's broader agenda to reform, modernise and invest in Britain's public services. We must not lose sight of the fact that the fire service is a local authority service that is paid for out of local authority budgets. Schools, refuse collection and other local authority services are subject to review and audit through the new system of comprehensive performance assessments. The Bain report recommends further discussion on the introduction of a similar system for fire authorities that would ensure a comprehensive approach to audit for the milestones that it sets out.
	With permission, I shall now turn to Sir George Bain's recommendations on pay and conditions. In May, the Fire Brigades Union tabled a claim for a 40 per cent. increase in firefighters' pay and a 50 per cent. increase in pay for control room staff. That remains its position today. That has to be seen against the background of the recent local authority pay award of 7.8 per cent. over two years and the 8 per cent. over two years accepted by the Transport and General Workers Union leadership for airport firefighters.
	The Bain report commissioned two studies to compare pay for fire service roles with pay for jobs of similar weight elsewhere in the economy. The report concludes in paragraph 8.19 that there is no case for significant increases in pay based on the existing pay system. However, it calls for a new reward structure that is fit for a modernised fire service, following on from reforms. The Government's response to the FBU's claim has been guided by two clear principles: first, our hard-won economic stability should not be put at risk; and secondly, any pay award must be affordable within existing public expenditure provision. The Bain report's recommendations comply with those two principles and give a fair deal to the firefighters and the public who pay for them.
	In line with the Bain review's interim position paper, the final report proposes an 11.3 per cent. pay increase over two years, subject to the implementation of the common-sense reforms that it sets out. The report does not rule out further pay increases in future, but as with the 11.3 per cent. increase, any increases would be subject to the implementation of the modernisation programme set out in the report.
	The package proposed by Sir George could mean that an ordinary firefighter could earn around #23,900 a year by November 2003; that a leading firefighter could earn up to #26,700 a year; and that a leading firefighter in London could earn up to #29,300 a year by the same time. The Bain report makes it clear that a two-year pay deal of that order would not be self-financing over two years, but that if modernisation is fully implemented, it could be self-financing over a three-year period.
	The local government employers have made it plain to me that they will find it difficult to fund any up-front investment to pay for future modernisation. In keeping with the proposals set out in the Bain report, the Government accept that it may be necessary to provide a small amount of transitional funding over the next two years in order to make it possible for a three-year self-financing deal to be agreed. That funding would be within the existing departmental expenditure limits and would be subject to a satisfactory pay and modernisation agreement and adequate provision for implementing and auditing the modernisation process.
	The new pay and career structure proposed in the Bain report will open up new opportunities for firefighters at all levels to develop their skills and increase their income. The report's modernisation agenda will provide a better, safer service to the public. Some brigades, such as the Devon and Mid and West Wales brigades, already carry defibrillators. Why should not others do so? In Warwickshire, ambulance and fire control room staff already share the same building. Why should not other brigades do the same? In some areas, local arrangements are in place for part-time and full-time firefighters to work together. Why should that not be more widespread? It does not mean compulsory redundancies. It does not mean tearing up the shift system. But it does mean a more efficient use of resources, more flexible terms and conditions for firefighters, and tackling the current inadequacies of management. It also means enabling better collaboration to take place between individual fire brigades and the Fire Service and other public services. Exactly how that will be achieved is a matter for negotiation between the employers and the FBU.
	The FBU and the local government employers are now engaged in exploratory talks with ACAS. I am pleased that, in the light of those ongoing talks, the FBU has called off the eight-day strike that was scheduled to start today, but I regret the FBU's decision to call further strikes for the new year, which can only cause disruption and put people's lives at risk. The Government believe that the ACAS discussions should take the recommendations and proposals in the Bain report fully into account, as well as the principles set out in my letter to Sir Jeremy Beecham on 28 November. That will mean some tough talking; but further strikes will achieve nothing.
	Throughout this dispute, I have urged the FBU to talk, not walk. I recognise that the union has set its face against the Bain changes, but change is on its way, and the FBU cannot set its face against that. It is now time for it to start talking seriously.
	The Bain report says
	XWith clear vision, commitment and leadership, the programme of reform is achievable. The prizes are considerable, including a better service for the public and a more rewarding career for the men and women in the Service. Most of all, the package of reforms should save lives."
	The report is a challenge to all of us—the Government, the fire authorities and fire service personnel—but it is a challenge that the Government are determined to meet. The report provides a fair deal for the firefighters, a fair deal for other workers and a fair deal for the economy. Above all, it will provide a better service for the people of this country. I commend it to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and for giving me notice of it. I thank him particularly for making the Bain report available to the House well in advance. There is much to welcome in the report, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the members of the review body. Subject, of course, to proper scrutiny in the House, we will do what we can to expedite the primary legislation that he mentioned.
	An 11 per cent. rise in firefighters' pay over two years, coupled with radical modernisation of their working practices, is the main proposal in the Bain report. Will the Deputy Prime Minister say in more detail how he and the employers intend to pay for such a wage increase? He talked of a small amount of transitional funding, but back in November the Prime Minister insisted that any pay rise of more than 4 per cent. must be self-financing. Is that still the case?
	Paragraph 8.22.ii of the report says
	XWe recommend that the paybill should increase from November 2003 by 7 per cent."
	It is notable that Bain uses the word Xpaybill", by which we must assume he means total pay-related costs. That implies that little or no savings will be made by November 2003. Is my understanding correct? If so, this indicates a transitional cost of more than #60 million.
	The Deputy Prime Minister said last time that the primary source of funding for a pay deal was likely to be manpower reduction based on the retirement of some 20 per cent. of firefighters in the next few years. He said, I think, that that amounted to 10,000 jobs. Unless early retirement is involved—which would cost money rather than releasing it—it will take some time for the manpower reduction to happen.
	Professor Bain seems to assume that the arrangement will be introduced after 2003. That means a gap between any pay settlement and the work pattern changes needed to fund it. I understand that the professor largely confirmed that on the radio today. Transitional funding is, as the Deputy Prime Minister has effectively admitted, crucial to concluding the negotiation. The Chancellor, who is present, has said that absolutely no money will be available for the deal; the Prime Minister has said Xnothing over 4 per cent."; the Deputy Prime Minister has been more conciliatory, saying XWe are quite prepared to make an exceptional case". Now, he is set to provide a small amount of transitional funding. After waiting three months for the report, will he tell us how much the amount will be?
	The report makes it clear that the fire service must take a radically different approach to ensure that fewer people die as a result of fire. The Deputy Prime Minister properly talked about that at some length. We all know the importance of the job that firefighters undertake, and we congratulate them on doing it. However, the report states that the overall strategic approach concentrates on firefighting, not on fire prevention, and it argues that that strategy should be reversed to concentrate on prevention. Indeed, the report is subtitled, XReducing Risk, Saving Lives". In the light of that, will the Government, when assessing any changes in work practices in the settlement, try to achieve an improvement in cover, safety and service levels? Will they make public the improved safety levels that they seek?
	Although it is difficult to make comparisons, other European countries with a similar climate and culture—the Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria—have much lower death rates than the United Kingdom. If we achieved the same rates as the Swiss or the Dutch, we would save about 300 lives a year. The report shows that New Zealand, which had the same level of fatalities as us four years ago, has halved the death rate from fires. Again, that is equivalent to 300 lives a year in the UK.
	Although hon. Members would understand the Deputy Prime Minister's discomfort in setting himself another five-year target, will he use the opportunity that the reorganisation of the fire service provides to commit the Government to saving 300 lives a year or an equivalent target?
	The scope for cost savings in some fire brigades is much greater than in others, nevertheless, all brigades will have to meet the costs of the new pay structure. How will the Government equalise that disparity so that they do not penalise previously efficient fire brigades, especially those in rural areas with retained firefighters? Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the scope for savings in rural areas that use retained firefighters is relatively small, and that the price of Bain should not be the closure of fire stations in rural areas?
	In his interim report, Bain said that clearer national leadership must complement negotiation. One of the recurrent problems that worsened the dispute was the failure of communication between the Deputy Prime Minister's Office and the employers. Will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that his office takes direct control of the negotiations so that the Government may exercise a veto over the financing of any deal and the acceptability of changes in work practices?
	The report clearly states that the Government rather than the Bain review must decide whether to restrict the right to strike for such an important public service. Has the Deputy Prime Minister held any talks about that? What is his opinion and that of Downing street on the matter?
	We have heard much in the past couple of weeks about talks at ACAS. We understand that no new offer is currently on the table, and the Bain report was not published until today. No hon. Members want any more fire strikes. Will the Deputy Prime Minister spell out the progress of the negotiations at ACAS and his expectations for a deal in the near future?
	I hope that the publication of the Bain report means that the continuing talks can be conducted expeditiously. I also hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can get a grip on matters, take personal control of the negotiations and not lose an hour in pursuing a financially responsible outcome to the dispute.
	What is the timetable for the negotiations in the next few critical weeks? The Bain report will be effected, the dispute ended and true reforms that reduce risk and save lives achieved only if the Deputy Prime Minister takes a grip on matters.

John Prescott: I am grateful for the comments of support, such as they were, at the beginning of the contribution of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). As for taking a grip, I remind him that Lord Belstead was the Home Office Minister in 1980 who made the same sort of recommendations to the Home Office review as those of the Bain report. The Tory Government did not take much of a grip to implement their review. Fifteen years later, in 1995, the Audit Commission report made the same points and again the Government failed to act. I shall therefore take no lectures from a Tory Member of Parliament when, in 18 years, the Tory Administration failed to do anything about the matter.
	We are now trying to do what Sir George Bain is asking us to do, which is to make the commitment to implement, rather than making promises and doing nothing about them. I have already mentioned some important changes in regard to accepting the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Everybody knows that, for negotiations to take place, we have to make changes to some of the legislative requirements, and I have immediately given that commitment.
	Many of the right hon. Gentleman's questions will be answered in our White Paper, but I shall address some of the points that he has raised. I have some sympathy with his point about the confusion over the figures, because I face some of that confusion myself. The problem here is that the financial year relating to the costs and savings that have been referred to runs from April to April, whereas the pay negotiations cover a period from November to November, part of which would therefore be in one financial year and part in another. I can send the right hon. Gentleman a more detailed statement of those figures, if he likes. The statement makes it clear, however, that the net cost savings mean that the proposed programme could fund itself over three years but not over two, in terms of the extra costs required, and in relation to the modernisation and the savings that can be made. That could be done in three years, but it is right to say that the recommended deal could not fund itself over a two-year period. There is no doubt about that, and I have made it clear to the employers.
	It is not my intention to take over the negotiations. We are doing exactly what every other Government have done; they have pointed out what their public pay policy is. That policy applies to everyone in all the local authority sectors, as well as to all other public sector workers. In these circumstances, no extra payments over and above those that are catered for in the public pay policy—or indeed, the 4 per cent. that has been granted—will be paid without modernisation. The employers have to show me—I believe that they have already made a statement this morning—that they intend, in view of the Bain recommendations, to produce a robust business report, which will be given to us, detailing how they might achieve this. That is the best way of dealing with this issue. The employers can now take into account what Bain has said.
	The ACAS discussions are welcome because, although one party has refused to co-operate on Bain, those discussions have brought the parties together to listen to the case and discuss its implications. If ACAS can provide us with an opportunity in which the parties are prepared to talk, I do not mind if the agenda for change is achieved under ACAS or Bain, so long as the same principles apply. As I said in my statement, I wish ACAS well in its endeavours to get people to agree to both the modernisation and the increase in pay that will be justified by the changes. Let me also make it clear that the moneys will not come from the reserves or from the Chancellor. I have been very clear that this is my responsibility; these are the moneys that I have within my Department, so anything that needs to be found will have to come from my budget and not from the Chancellor or from extra money from the reserves. That has always been clear, and I am glad to be able to confirm that.
	I have already said that it is not my job to get involved in negotiating deal upon deal. If Governments attempted to negotiate pay agreements in every sector, it would create a highly centralised arrangement. In the main, most Governments have liked to leave the negotiations on local services to local people, and that has been the general principle that we have adopted. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion comes from an Opposition who are constantly talking about giving power down to the local areas, rather than centralising it. So be it. This dispute illustrates their constant conflict of judgment in such matters.
	On the White Paper, mention has been made of comparisons with other firefighting facilities—in New Zealand, for example—and the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Dutch and Swiss services. The inquiry has pointed out that there are differences, and that obviously has to be taken into account. The fire services that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned have shift systems. I want to make it clear that nothing in our proposals would abolish the shift system, or some of the other practices that have gone with it, in relation to second jobs, for example. Those conditions apply in most of the fire services throughout the world, but let me make it clear that we need some changes: changes are necessary and we intend to embark on them. The fire authorities in the different countries to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have modernised and changed. They accept overtime and also do some of the things that we have recommended. I do not think that it is too much to ask that the British firefighting service should face up to the same challenge, which we believe will provide a better service.

Harry Barnes: What time frame is attached to the Fire Brigades Union's demand for 40 per cent? We heard the Opposition talking about five-year targets. It strikes me that it would be possible to engage in a long-term deal that moved the figure, perhaps not to 40 per cent., but to one that would satisfy the FBU, especially if the discussions took place around Bain, because a lot of complex matters have been put before us.

John Prescott: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there are many complex issues here, but I must say that the factual answer to his question is that the FBU wanted the 40 per cent. to be paid in one year, and no strings. That was totally unacceptable, although as I understand it that remains the claim before us. If there is an alternative, I hope that the FBU will take account of Bain. It can improve its wage scales, but that will happen through the negotiations with the local authorities.

Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and join him in thanking Professor Sir George Bain and his colleagues for the excellent work in the report.
	The Deputy Prime Minister is right to regret the fact that the FBU leadership appears to have set its face against change and appears to be planning to go ahead with strikes in the new year, but does he agree that the FBU's dismissive response to the publication of Bain today is as depressing as it is predictable? Does he also recognise that Bain's review is as challenging to the Government and fire authorities as it is to the FBU?
	Specifically on funding the pay proposals, the Deputy Prime Minister says that he will provide a small amount of transitional funding. Will he say more about what figure he has in mind? Is it the #29 million that Bain identifies on page 119 in table 12.1 as the gap between costs and savings over the first three years or does the Deputy Prime Minister have another figure in mind? If he is prepared to provide about #29 million, will he tell the House exactly how and in what form he intends to supply that money? In particular, will he ensure that fire authorities that have already reaped cost savings are not penalised just because they have completed modernisation? Does he not agree that it would be wrong to burden modernising fire authorities and their taxpayers with all the extra costs when they have fewer opportunities to reap efficiencies? Will he therefore ensure that extra central Government cash is carefully distributed and targeted to reward the leaders of modernisation?
	Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that Bain is good news for retained firefighters, just as it should be? Does he agree that one of the most welcome proposals in Bain is to give proper advocacy and representation to the Retained Firefighters Union, which, up to now, has been pushed out by the FBU? Does he agree that, if there is a weakness in the Bain review, it is the failure to recommend an even better pay deal for retained firefighters, as there is a serious 20 per cent. plus vacancy rate for retained positions?
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister make it clear to those whose job it is to complete the negotiations that they should ensure that the retained firefighters are not betrayed simply because they have not been represented at the table and have been prepared to work and modernise?
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether he disagrees with any of Bain's recommendations? Does he support, like us, the proposals to regionalise fire authorities and to back local pay top-ups? On Bain's observations on central Government's emergency planning role, does he accept Bain's statement that
	Xfurther substantial funds will be required"
	and when can we expect an announcement on that?
	Finally, what assurance can the Deputy Prime Minister give the House that this latest fire service review will be implemented?

John Prescott: If I may, I will take the hon. Gentleman's last question first. I thank him for his support, but let me make it clear that I do not want anybody to be under any misapprehension whatever—I intend to see the report implemented. It is a report to take into account in the negotiations.
	The Bain report is not specific about every part of this deal; it says that its function is not to settle a dispute, but to give some guidance, an up-to-date position and recommendations on how modernisation and pay can be brought together. We fully accept that principle. I am sad that the FBU has said that the Bain report is irrelevant. I do not think it is; it is very relevant to the discussion.
	As the FBU has made its position clear and as it is now in discussions at ACAS, it would be useful if it took into account, as the employers will surely point out to it, how modernisation is connected to pay. That, again, depends very much on how much money the Government are prepared to give. The hon. Gentleman referred to the table in the report, which shows that the deal can pay for itself, but in three years. Money can be gained in the third year. Therefore, a judgment would have to be made as to the transitional funds, but let me be absolutely clear: there will be no funds available at all if nobody undertakes any modernisation.
	This is not a deal where people go ahead, as has happened every time in the past, even under the previous Administration, without doing anything about the recommendations. The FBU has to recognise that, in these circumstances, modernisation is connected to extra payments. That connection is relevant to the Government and relevant to everyone else. I hope that the fire brigade takes that on board. It is an important part of the deal, if the fire brigade is prepared to negotiate on those terms.
	The Bain report makes it clear that a lot more should be done to give part-time or retained workers proper parity of pay and also, perhaps, that there should be a recognition of that when considering the pension fund. Bain makes special recommendations on that, which we will have to take on board, and we will give our responses in the White Paper.
	Of course, that would mean having mixed crews, which was another recommendation, but the FBU has always set its face against it. I am told that it is against the idea because it offends against its overtime ban. The ban creates real problems in itself. It is there to prevent people from taking extra resources or gaining extra payment, whereas firefighters elsewhere in the world can earn overtime. The FBU is against second jobs, although a lot of its members have them. I find it odd that it denies firemen the opportunity to do a second job as a part-time fire worker. After all, that is what they are trained for. It is odd that a firefighter can have a second job as a taxi driver but cannot help to provide a decent fire service by working overtime. It is precisely such absurdities that we have to deal with.

John McFall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the personal denigration of George Bain by the FBU? He is a committed public servant with whom I have worked, and a man of the utmost integrity. Will my right hon. Friend develop initiatives to engage the ordinary, decent firemen on the ground, so that the much-needed change to the fire service can be implemented, and we can help to find the #7 billion that it costs to save lives today—and save lives in the process, which we have not been too good at to date?

John Prescott: I agree strongly about the denigration of George Bain by the FBU, which has been quite powerful. It is totally unacceptable. He is a public servant who carried out the inquiry with great commitment. The denigration is not new—it has gone on constantly, and been directed not only at Sir George but at other members of his committee. I think that most of us in the House would agree that that is unacceptable.
	My hon. Friend talks about persuading the decent firemen. I do not differentiate between decent and non-decent firemen—and I am sure that he does not either. All the firefighters are trying to do a job, and the union is trying, in many cases, to reflect its members views, but I hope that firefighters who are following our discussions and reading about what is going on will get involved, read the Bain report and come to a judgment on whether we need a better balance in the fire service, concentrating more on prevention rather than intervention. Sir George has done an excellent job in giving us the properly recorded argument on which to base the debate. Calling that irrelevant is not the way to get agreement, and I hope that the rest of the firemen will take that into account and start negotiations.

Francis Maude: The Bain report contains some sensible recommendations, and I hope that they will be implemented. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree, however, that it fails to tackle the principle archaism that cries out for reform: the quaint idea that there is a single model of providing a fire service that is equally applicable in every part of the country, and the equally outdated notion that a single rate of pay is appropriate everywhere? If he really wants to be radical and to achieve modernisation, why does not he look for a way of seriously decentralising, so that local fire authorities can negotiate pay directly with their local employees, and get rid of the wholly outdated notion of a national pay structure?

John Prescott: When the right hon. Gentleman reads the Bain report in closer detail, he will see that it does talk of the need to have a decentralised service. Indeed, it goes further and says that in the fourth strand of change consideration should be given to the concept of regionalism. On different rates of pay, or different services in rural or urban areas, clearly one framework does not suit all. Indeed, Bain says that there could be differences in those different circumstances. I think that he is advocating not different wages in different places, but differences in allowances and agreements to reflect the differing demands. He certainly takes into account the high number of applications for jobs in the fire service.

John McDonnell: If Bain is implemented, what will be the estimated total number of firefighter posts in 2005–06, and what is the estimated cost of introducing the recommended reforms to the financial arrangements for the pension fund?

John Prescott: In all these cases, everything depends on the state of negotiations between the employers and the employees. On jobs, as Bain has constantly and rightly pointed out, there is no need for compulsory redundancies. Many mischievous statements have been made in this House, but it is quite wrong to suggest that the result will be a great deal of unemployment.
	On costs, again, the issue is the negotiations between the employers and the employees. As the table to which we have been referring shows, what matters is just how much modernisation the Fire Brigades Union is prepared to undertake. I simply say to the FBU that it should get involved in those negotiations. Perhaps my hon. Friend has received a copy of the recent paper from the FBU, which puts forward some of its views on these matters. It deals with very serious issues, and I hope that Members will read it. It is a pity that it did not give that evidence to the Bain inquiry, because it contains some very good arguments. I hope that it will give that information to ACAS, so that we can take it into account. However, at the end of the day the FBU must recognise that a connection will be made between modernisation and pay.
	On the likely cost of pensions, again, that depends on exactly what happens and how many people take early retirement. As Bain points out, the cost of the pension system is leading to difficulties. If that system is to be extended to part-time fireworkers—that is one recommendation—a serious study needs to be undertaken. In 1995, the Audit Commission recommended that the true costs of the pension fund should be reassessed. We cannot make that estimate at the moment, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that such a survey will have to be undertaken. Work is under way in that regard.

Patrick Cormack: I wish the right hon. Gentleman success in implementing these reforms, but does he agree that any truly modern fire service should be unable to hold the nation to ransom, and would have a no-strike, binding arbitration agreement as part of such a settlement?

John Prescott: I think that this House would want industrial peace in all areas, and for matters to be settled by negotiation to the satisfaction of all parties. That is something that we would all strive to achieve. We have received some criticism for perhaps not being as tough as the Opposition would like, but I should point out that, of the 36 days of strikes that were planned, only 12 have taken place. We must wait and see what happens, but if we had rushed in by using legislation and taking the sort of action that is being talked about, we would have inflamed the situation, difficulties would have arisen and I doubt whether we would have reached the position that we have reached today. We have to make a balanced judgment about the use of legislation and getting the best out of negotiations; we have given our best judgment, and so far that has proved reasonably successful.

Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Bain recommendations before the House today are not news to firefighters. From day one, they have regarded Bain as delivering nothing more than a long-standing firemaster's wish agenda. How optimistic, confident or otherwise is he that he will get the FBU to sit down and look at these proposals?

John Prescott: Bain's proposals constitute his independent judgment, having looked at the evidence over a number of years, of what he thinks is the best way to provide a modernised fire service. They are to the advantage of everyone—to the fireworkers, to the firefighters and, indeed, to the country at large—and they equate to the principles that we laid down. The proposals constitute a very important step towards trying to achieve change, but as my hon. Friend rightly points out, they are not new. Bain scoured the many directly relevant reports—there are some eight or 10—and pointed out that, although they rightly praise the FBU for the provision of a good service, they make the common claim that modernisation is still necessary because certain restrictions prevent the provision of a better service. That is the judgment that we use, and Bain makes an important contribution to it.

Hywel Williams: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that specific issues arise in rural areas—particularly in Scotland and in Wales—and that there is little scope to renegotiate pay and conditions in those areas? Does he also accept that, as a result of the report, we still face strikes in the new year, at a time when there is real concern about the coverage provided by the green goddesses in those areas?

John Prescott: There is a distinct difference, which has already been recognised in the provision of fire services in rural and urban areas, and the targets reflect that. However, we recognise that in the main, particularly in the rural areas, cover is mainly carried out by part-time, not full-time workers, who believe it unjust that they do not get paid the same rate as full-time firefighters. The Bain report has said that that needs to be changed and that changes will also need to be made to the pension funds to reflect that. The Government will consider those recommendations and give their response in the White Paper to be published in the spring.
	The union has made it clear that there will be another dispute. I am glad that it is a number of weeks away because it allows the armed forces to have a break, particularly during the festive season. The legal advice given to me is that it is not necessary to maintain the strike envelope; presumably it is there to add to the pressure. We are constantly under pressure, and those that apply it should bear it in mind that it is our intention to carry out modernisation; we will not avoid it as has happened in the past. We are committed to making the change.

Jonathan R Shaw: May I welcome the statement and my right hon. Friend's comments about transitional funding? Does he agree that there are varying practices up and down the country and that many brigades have implemented changes such as community fire safety? The Kent brigade has been in the vanguard of reducing the number of deaths and house fires. To assist with the negotiations, can I ask for clarification, because some of the language used has been misunderstood by FBU members? [Interruption.] This is a question. On paramedical training, for example, some people have asked me whether the Government believe that fire brigades should undertake ambulance training for four years or is my right hon. Friend talking more about defibrillators? I think that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that that will do.

John Prescott: I am aware of the great improvements to the Kent fire brigade from talking to the leader of Kent's Tory authority, Sandy Bruce-Lockhart. He gave me some examples of co-operation between members and fire officers that has reduced the number of deaths and accidents quite considerably in the past three years. I would not want to give the House the impression that improvements are not being made to the system—clearly there are, with the co-operation of all parties. It shows how much can be achieved if people are prepared to do that, although it is a pity that it usually happens within the local brigade area, not nationally. Our point is that we need to raise national standards.
	On the provision of defibrillators, that is a very important point. It takes five or six years to train people to become paramedics and it is an insult not to recognise their true skills. However, it is silly that we can have defibrillators in some areas but not in others. As I understand it, they are supposed to be there only to assist the firefighters themselves. It is nonsense that such a facility is not available to all areas of the community at all times. I know that the fire service finds this controversial, but I saw a study that said that if defibrillators were available and approved for the general public, the response time of the fire service could be increased so that it was better than that of the ambulance service, which is under pressure. If we had the same rate of response at the fire brigade level, it could save many thousands of lives. That is the sort of modernising proposal that will cost us money, but it is for the benefit of the community and I think that we should do it.

Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to change the Fire Services Act 1947 by bringing forward amendments to the Local Government Bill which begins its passage in the House on 7 January?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The legislation will be available to us; we will be looking at what we can do in regard to that and I shall be responding shortly.

Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that ordinary firemen should not adopt a kneejerk response to statements about the Bain report but study it in the watches and at the stations, identify how they can make it work for them and their families and then instruct the negotiators to get them the best deal possible? In that context, will he continue to promote a calm and decent atmosphere that is conducive to sensible negotiations?

John Prescott: I think that the House will agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. The reaction of people in the fire service who listen to the debate or who watch it on television, where we have received so much publicity of late, is most important. We are not making a major attack and completely scrapping the shift system, as has been said. Of course, such reports cause great concern to fire brigades. What we are saying is that some changes are common sense and should be considered. Every fire brigade should have a 24-hour-a-day watch system and we want to keep such a system, but changes can be made. Some of them have been highlighted today and I hope that there can be a decent discussion of them among members of fire brigades.

Paul Tyler: This afternoon, the Deputy Prime Minister made several references to the fact that many of the modernisation proposals in the Bain report have already been accepted—indeed, embraced—by fire brigades in different parts of the country, not least in Cornwall and Devon. Does he accept that it would be widely resented among firefighters in those more forward-thinking brigades if the new money is used as a bribe for the backward brigades rather than to recognise and reward those that have already taken steps to accept modernisation?

John Prescott: We are concerned to ensure that the savings are of benefit everywhere. As I pointed out, advances have already been made in some aspects—for example, combined control rooms. We want those advances to take place throughout the system. Where modernisation proposals have been implemented, it will not be necessary to make changes, but we want to raise standards in the fire service nationally so that they are acceptable to everyone, in line with Bain, and so that they justify the payments. Areas where changes have already been made will receive the increased payments.

Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most interesting and important part of his statement was the new provision that referred to transitional funding, up-front, to resolve the modernisation question? Some of us raised that matter during a previous statement from my right hon. Friend; that is important in itself. I shall not ask—as the Tories did—how much money my right hon. Friend has in his budget although I hope that it is not a small amount. I hope the sum is big enough.
	Whatever my right hon. Friend does, I ask him not to accept the proposal made earlier by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that we should introduce regional pay scales, which, by the way, was a Liberal proposition. If we accepted that proposal, the present dispute would look like a vicarage tea party.

John Prescott: I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's argument about regional pay scales, but there should be some discussion of it. There is a national wage for fire brigades, but allowances vary in different areas; for example, London weighting can add about #2,000 to the wage. We should have some discussion of that. The FBU should not say that such things are irrelevant; it should discuss matters that affect its members' wages.
	On previous occasions, I could not be specific about transitional funding or the amounts involved because they depended on the costs and savings that could be made. Bain has now given some indication of those amounts. People accused me of sabotaging the agreement at 5 o'clock in the morning, even though I had made it clear at 3 o'clock to both the general secretary of the TUC and the employers' negotiators that I could not sign a blank cheque. However, one of the difficulties was that they did not know what savings could be made; in 25 years, the possible savings had never been worked out. Some joint work has now been carried out between Bain, ourselves and the local authority employers and I can now say how much we would save if the proposals were implemented.
	An awful lot of work was needed but the principle is clear. Transitional payments will need to be agreed for a three-year period, but I cannot enter into any agreement unless there is a modernisation agreement that will take us to year three. I am not prepared to make the same mistakes that were made time and again whereby there was agreement on pay first and then talk about modernisation. This time, the two must happen together.

Mark Francois: I welcome the particular recommendation in Bain that enhanced terms and conditions should be made available for our retained firefighters. We all want a successfully negotiated end to the dispute, but will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to our retained firefighters? They provide critically important cover in our rural areas and many of them continued to provide emergency cover during periods when the regulars were on strike.

John Prescott: I want to pay tribute to all those who have been involved in maintaining our services—whether the part-time firefighters, the Army or the police, all of whom have provided quite an effective service in the most difficult circumstances. Many part-timers are involved in the dispute and support the FBU case, but all the firefighters—part-time or full-time—need to get together and say, XChange is coming, and now is the time to take part in it." They should start talking, not walking, and let us get an agreement to this dispute.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if there are flaws in the Bain report, they are largely caused by the FBU's decision not to participate in that report? Will he ensure that, as the negotiations progress, the real recruitment and retention difficulties faced by brigades on the borders of London, which do not benefit from the London allowance, are considered? That situation is practically unique in this country. If he is considering primary legislation, will he also consider whether it should extend to improving fire safety in new buildings, as well as modernising the fire service?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend refers to improving the fire regulations, and we certainly want to do that—indeed, legislation on improving building regulations in that way is already before the House—but we need to take a much more comprehensive approach. That is behind the concept of wanting more prevention rather than intervention. A point was made about Kent fire brigade being actively involved in fire prevention—something that the FBU has always supported, and we need to see more of it. That is the balance and change that we are trying to achieve.
	As for whether there are flaws in the report, I shall listen to those views, but I think that it is a pretty comprehensive and good report. It is based on the many reports over the past 20 years that have not been acted upon, and it was wrong for the union not to participate and, indeed, to set its face against the report. The point now is whether the union representatives are sitting down, discussing with the employers and negotiating how to reach a settlement. That is still the case at the moment, and we should encourage that.

Points of Order

Tim Collins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any indication today of whether the Secretary of State for Transport is willing to make a statement to the House on the shocking press reports on Friday and Sunday that he proposes to abandon the targets on reducing road congestion and increasing passenger numbers introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister and, furthermore, that he proposes to cut public subsidy in a way that will ensure fewer trains and higher fares. Is not such a statement important to put right the indication from the Downing street press office this morning that tomorrow's statement will be only a written statement, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would expect such an important matter to discussed on the Floor of the House and dealt with properly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no indication that a statement of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests is about to be made at the moment.

Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you whether the Speaker would consider issuing a fatwa to Ministers who fail to answer their correspondence in a timely manner—a matter that I have raised with the occupant of the Chair on several occasions? This morning, I received a reply to a letter that I had addressed to the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety on 6 September. The letter has been chased up on any number of occasions, and I finally received a reply not from the Minister himself, but from a private secretary, four months late. That is not only impertinent to my constituents, but rude to Parliament. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, raise this matter with the Speaker and find out whether he will issue more general instructions to Ministers about the generally lamentable way in which they answer correspondence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has made his views on that matter clear on a number of occasions. He agrees very much with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and, no doubt, Ministers will have heard him put it on the record again.

John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If Mr. Speaker is unable to get the response that my hon. Friend seeks, will he seek a concession from Ministers so that they issue a series of apology notices that Members of Parliament can send out to make it clear that, when constituents do not get a proper reply, it is because the Minister, not the Member of Parliament, has been dilatory?

Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you do make a ruling such as the right hon. Gentleman has just requested, will you make it retrospective to the last Conservative Government, including former Secretaries of State for the Environment in that Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said, Mr. Speaker has made his position clear on this matter. I am sure that he would not want to become involved with the specific details of ministerial replies.

BILL PRESENTED

Pensions (Winding-Up)

Mr. Frank Field, supported by Mr. Derek Wyatt, Mr. Kevin Brennan, Vernon Coaker, David Wright and Mr. Andrew Miller, presented a Bill to provide for the distribution of the assets of pension schemes on winding-up and the duties of trustees in relation thereto; to make provision relating to the fees chargeable in relation to the process of winding-up a pension scheme; to establish arrangements for a compensation scheme for certain members of occupational schemes, including for the establishment of a levy on pension schemes; and to establish a review of the status of pensions-related liabilities in insolvency; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed. [Bill 36].

Orders of the Day

Hunting Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. The House will be aware that Mr. Speaker has put a limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches today, and it would be greatly appreciated by the House in general if Front-Bench spokesmen could also limit their contributions to a reasonable length to allow as many Back Benchers as possible to take part in today's very important debate.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you remind the House what the rules are on interventions, and what is the impact of interventions on the eight-minute limit?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, I will again tell the House how this works. The first intervention that a Member accepts does not count against his time, and he is allowed an extra minute on the end of his speech. The same applies for a second intervention—the intervener's time does not apply, and the hon. Member is allowed a second minute on the end of his speech. After that, there are no allowances at all.

Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The purpose of this Bill is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the long-running and contentious issue of hunting with dogs. Some people have congratulated me on achieving the impossible: creating a sort of unity by getting both sides in the debate to express initial opposition to my Bill. I am told that I have demonstrated a special talent.
	In fact, such opposition is almost inevitable when entering a debate that has been raging for decades, in which both sides have been in campaigning mode for years, and where hon. Members have made personal commitments to one side or the other. Each person is looking for a Bill that enshrines his or her beliefs in law, and will take some persuading that they should consider supporting anything that differs from the Bill for which they last voted.
	I need say little about the Conservative amendment because it says little that is helpful or true. The Conservatives talk about the rights and legitimate interests of minorities, but have they forgotten how their party devastated the rights and interests of minorities and majorities alike, and how rural communities suffered as well as urban communities? That is why Labour now represents some 180 rural and semi-rural constituencies. The Conservatives claim to be concerned about restrictions on individual freedom. Do they really demand the freedom to be cruel to animals? Is that how low the Conservatives have sunk?

Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way at such an early stage. Ignoring for the moment the intellectually obtuse remark that he has just made about licensing cruelty, would he tell us, as he dismisses the amendment, which parts of it he considers to be true?

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have to suggest to me something that might qualify. The amendment is barely reasoned, and certainly not reasonable.
	Since I first took on this job, I have been clear with everyone that my task is to put before the House a proposal that deals with the issue in a way that is based on the right principles tested against evidence, that will make good law, that is enforceable and that will stand the test of time. The Bill is robust when tested against all four of those challenging criteria in a way that previous Bills were not.
	Many right hon. and hon. Members and others who have taken the time to look carefully at my Bill have, without compromising their views, acknowledged that it is well crafted and will make effective and enforceable law. It will tackle cruelty, but it also recognises the need to deal with pests and to protect livestock and crops.

Patrick Cormack: How does the right hon. Gentleman's Bill deal with cruelty if it will allow rabbits but not hares to be hunted with dogs and if it will allow falconry and therefore animals to be torn apart by hawks? The Minister has introduced a Bill that is riddled with inconsistencies and that is totally unacceptable. It shows why he is reading from the XYellow Pages".

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has shown his prejudice, the fact that he has not read the Bill, and that he does not understand the concept of cruelty. He referred to suffering, which may be caused in a variety of ways. Cruelty is well defined in English law, and my Bill deals with the issue.
	As well as being practical, the Bill deals clearly with the moral issue. At the Bill's heart is the key purpose of preventing the cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. That is why it is important to emphasise that the Bill, far from being a compromise, is uncompromising in seeking to root out cruelty. It will not allow cruelty through hunting in the way that the Protection of Animals Act 1911 did, it will not license cruelty in the way that the middle way group's proposals sought to do, and it will not just list the activities to be banned in the way that previous Bills have sought to do at the risk of creating a jamboree for lawyers in the courts. Instead, it goes straight to the heart of the matter by enshrining in law the principle of preventing cruelty as well as the principle of recognising utility. Those principles emerged from the Burns report.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister explain why he has unfairly singled out hare coursing and stag hunting? Will he confirm that he has accepted that both stag hunting and hare coursing meet some of the tests of utility and cruelty? Will he also confirm what he said to stag hunters this morning, namely, that he had incontrovertible evidence that stag hunting is cruel?

Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall cover those points in few moments—

Lembit �pik: rose

John Maples: rose

Alun Michael: I am prepared to give way as generously as Mr. Deputy Speaker will allow me to do. However, I would be grateful if hon. Members would allow me to finish the odd sentence before I do so.

John Maples: The Minister said that, at heart, this was a moral question. Will he explain why it is moral to hunt a rabbit with a dog but immoral to hunt a fox with a dog?

Alun Michael: I shall explain those points in a moment, as I did in the statement that I made last week. The hon. Gentleman should have paid attention to the careful explanation that I gave on that occasion.

Lembit �pik: Does the Minister accept that, far from trying to license cruelty, the middle way group was also seeking a formulation? I accept that it is slightly different from the one that the Minister has come up with, but the whole point behind our view was that we could reduce cruelty more effectively through regulation than through a ban.

Alun Michael: I accept that the hon. Gentleman and those involved with him sought to open up a debate that was not just part of the polarised yah-boo of much of the debate that had taken place. However, their formulation would have amounted to a licensing of cruelty and, as I have made clear to him on previous occasions, that would be unacceptable.

Douglas Hogg: Would the Minister be good enough to tell the House the difference in principle between hunting with hounds, angling and pheasant shooting?

Alun Michael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has read with great care his brief from the Countryside Alliance. It is the only group that believes that there should be any read across from the issue of hunting. That has been made a major issue because Members on both sidesthose for and against huntinghave turned up on many occasions to vote one way or another. I suggest that he does not allow the Countryside Alliance or anyone else to confuse the issue. The issue is hunting with dogs.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister concede that, at no stage, did Lord Burns or any of the hearings in Portcullis House conclude that there was a proven link to show that hunting was in any way cruel?

Alun Michael: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to reador watch the video if he finds it difficult to deal with the printthe Burns report, the evidence provided to it and the transcripts of the proceedings. He should go through all the evidence and take the time that I have taken to engage with those who support hunting as well as with those who oppose it before he comes to the House with reasoned conclusions.
	The principles that I explored with all the campaigning groups during the hearings in Portcullis House in September were those of cruelty and utility. The approach adopted in the Bill is challenging, but it is the way to make good lawlaw that is Xtough and fair, as The Guardian said in a leader that called on MPs and peers to support the Bill. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to want to cheer me up with their entirely predictable response. If they do not like that quote, perhaps they should try The Daily Telegraph for size. It said:
	XThe Hunting Bill published yesterday represents the most serious attempt yet to resolve the issue.
	Let us consider the Bill's practical effects. Hare coursing is indefensible. Bearing in mind the fact that the defenders of hunting have argued consistently that their activity is needed and necessary, we have to consider the utility aspect of hare coursing. As the objective is to test the speed and agility of the dogs not to catch the harethe House should not take my word for it; that is what it says on the National Coursing Club's websitehare coursing has nothing to do with controlling pests, so it fails the test of utility.

Desmond Swayne: What estimate has the Minister's Department made of the number of hares that would survive modern intensive farming if it were not for a sport that has preserved their habitat, which is available to all wildlife?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman takes me into territory that is not covered by the Bill. I shall be happy to debate that with him another time. The question before us is whether coursing can meet the criteria laid down in clause 8, and it cannot. It may play well in tribal discussions for the Countryside Alliance to say that an attack on one form of hunting is an attack on all, but it does its case no favours. If it seeks to defend the indefensible, how can it be taken seriously when it argues for the utility of another form of hunting? I hope that it reconsiders the logic of its position.

Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend mentions the Countryside Alliance, which has circulated its brief extensively to its supporters in the Opposition. Will he join me and, hopefully, the rest of the House in condemning the act that took place only a few minutes ago when pro-hunt supporters threw a lighted flare at my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)? Is that the Opposition's idea of free speech and a genuine expression of protest?

Alun Michael: Peaceful protest is the right of any citizen in this society, but protest that involves violence and a lack of reason has no place in it. It is hardly a persuasive way to approach the issue.
	Having made the position on hare coursing clear, let me deal with the police. They will gain a real benefit from the powers that the Bill gives to them. As letters from a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have made clear, the threats, intimidation and violence associated with illegal hare coursing cause fear in many rural areas, yet the only law broken is the law of trespass. The police have few teeth and little power to act. The Bill will give them the power to deal with that nuisance for the first time. The power of arrest, the #5,000 fine and the power of confiscation of animals and equipment will enable that rural nuisance to be tackled effectively with a minimum of fuss and evidence gathering.

Boris Johnson: Can the Minister give an idea of what extra resources will be committed to the police to deal with the thousands of people who will be criminalised by this absurd Bill?

Alun Michael: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the amount of police time that is taken up because they cannot deal effectively with illegal hare coursing. It is right to give them the powers to deal with it rather than simply letting it take up their time.

David Cameron: rose

Alun Michael: I must make a little progress before giving way again.
	Let us consider deer hunting, another activity that is dealt with in the Bill. I have already taken one intervention on that. It is necessary to control deer numbers and to disperse the herd to protect crops and growing trees. Although the test of utility may be passed, the test of crueltyto inflict the least sufferingis not. Both the Bateson report and subsequent evidence to Burns show clear evidence of chased deer suffering even if they are not caught. In stag hunting, a particular stag is selected for pursuit a day before the hunt. Even on Exmoor, where there is a widespread belief in the value of hunting, the belief is passionate rather than grounded in reason and evidence. I have spent time meeting a variety of groups there to understand the situation, and I know something of the distinct local culture on Exmoor.

Angela Browning: The Minister will be aware from the report sent to him by the Exmoor national park authority, in response to his consultation, that it believes that a ban on deer hunting on Exmoor threatens the sustainability of the wild deer herd. In reaching his decision on deer hunting, what do his calculations suggest will be the long-term life of that wild deer herd if he bans hunting on Exmoor?

Alun Michael: I have taken account of those views; indeed, I have met representatives of the national park authority, local authority representatives and others, and as I said, I spent some time in Exmoor because it is clear that there is an unusual culture in respect of the deer herd. Even some of those who strongly oppose deer hunting acknowledge that powerful cultural attachment, while those who support it appear to be unable to see the weakness of their case. Having given every opportunity to all sides, I have concluded on the evidence that deer hunting cannot satisfy the Bill's key principles and will therefore be banned outright.

David Cameron: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves his beloved principles, will he tell us what is the utility of coarse fishing?

Alun Michael: The Bill is about hunting, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he leaves neither the important principles nor the topic of the debate.
	There have been arguments in the past about the need to control or protect different species; for instance, about otters in the 1970s and more recently about mink, which has become a new quarry species. My point is that if the principles in the Bill are endorsed by the House, in future there will be good law in place to deal with each and every new element against clear principles and all the available evidence. The Bill will cover all mammals so that tests can be applied when circumstances arise, rather than us having to wait years for a legislative opportunity to clear up an anomaly.
	Let us apply the principles to ratting. In this case, the alternatives to using dogs are poisoning or trapping, both involving a likelihood of prolonged suffering and both likely to cause suffering for other species. Similar exemptions on ratting and rabbitting were included in the Deadline 2000 Bill, but as a member of the Standing Committee that considered that Bill, I remind the House that those exceptions were concessions made in Committee, and therefore true compromises, whereas in this Bill they clearly come from applying the key principles set out in clause 8.
	Is not that the logical outcome? Who can deny the need to eradicate rats to promote crops and animal health, and indeed human health? Who would wish to insist on the use of a more, rather than less, cruel method of doing so? Ratting is an example where hunting with dogs is necessary; undertaking such an activity just for fun is indefensible, and it will be banned, but there are circumstances in which the use of dogs is less cruel than the alternatives and in which there is a need to control pests, so the activity will survive.

Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the Minister on his handling of the debate so far. If I take out my long dogs and deliberately course a small hare, I will be breaking the law, but if I take them out the following day and deliberately course a large rabbit, twice the size of a hare, I will not break the law. Is not that ridiculous? Why has the Minister got it in for large rabbits?

Alun Michael: No, there is a difference in the species. There is also the fact that hare coursing fails the test of utility. As I have said, it is also a pernicious activity in many parts of the countryside. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of that.

Eric Martlew: Is not the logic of the argument that rabbits should not be hunted by dogs either?

Alun Michael: I shall leave my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) to continue that debate. I have put my conclusions before the House and I believe that they are sound.
	The Bill deals with the fact that the 1911 Act specifically allows hunters to be cruel by releasing a captive animal in order to hunt ita situation in which there could be no utilityso the Act remains explicitly a permission in law to hunt animals for the sheer fun of it. Few who defend hunting would argue for such an approach today. Indeed, the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, John Jackson, has said repeatedly that if an activity is cruel, we should not be doing it.
	The principle of utility has also been acknowledged on the other side of the divide, not least in the exemptions included in the options Bill, which the House approved and which was introduced on behalf of Deadline 2000 in the last Parliament. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. friends that through those principles the Bill deals fairly and squarely with fox hunting too.

Rob Marris: I am still having difficulty with the concept of balancing utility against cruelty. If, like me, one is against hanging humans for crimes, the Bill appears to be introducing in legislation the contradictory concept of, XWe're against hanging, but we'll allow it on Sunday afternoons between 2 and 4 o'clock.

Alun Michael: That is the point of the two tests in the Bill. People first have to satisfy a test of genuine utilitya need for the activity to take place for the protection of livestock, crops and so onthat is clearly spelt out in clause 8. If the utility test is satisfied, we must find the method of dealing with that utility least likely to result in sufferingthe definition of cruelty involves needless or avoidable suffering. If another way of pursuing a necessary activity involves less suffering, the proposed activity cannot be undertakenthat is why the issue of deer hunting has not survived the drafting of the Bill. In the case of ratting, however, both tests are satisfied, so the activity can be undertaken. Cruelty is a precisely defined term in law, and I have used it as tested over a period of years.

Colin Pickthall: What happened to mink? Was the Bill drafted by Baroness Golding?

Alun Michael: No. Any activity involving mink would have to survive the two tests to be undertaken in any particular circumstances.
	I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that in applying the principles I have just described, the Bill deals fairly and squarely with the issue of hunting foxes. Of course, on the hunting of foxes, the divisions to which I referred a few moments ago go even deeper. Indeed, they can be almost tribal on both sides. I suggest to the House that in those circumstances it is even more important to be clinical in applying principles and looking at the evidence. Any hon. Member who looks at the evidence in the light of the key principles may or may not reach the same conclusion as before. I simply remind all my colleagues that in free vote territory like this, there is always an uncomfortable personal responsibility to be open to new evidence and the power of argument.

Paddy Tipping: rose

Gerald Kaufman: rose

Alun Michael: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend said that with regard to the Bill we are in free vote territory, and I am very pleased indeed to hear that. I know that he will understand that when we come to vote next year on amendments that could bring about a complete ban, if the bulk of Labour Back Benchers voted for a ban, and if the bulk of the payroll vote voted against the ban, that would arouse outrage in the Labour movement.

Alun Michael: I can assure my right hon. Friend that this is free vote territory for all members of the parliamentary Labour party. I was about to touch on colleagues' wish to amend the Bill to achieve what is described as a Xtotal ban on hunting and urge them to reflect. Of course, I understand their objection to the possibility of any form of fox hunting with dogs being allowed anywhere in any form. If my proposals are accepted as drafted, there will be the possibility of some use of dogs where the circumstances justify it. However, Members should consider the implications of a so-called blanket ban in certain circumstances. The Burns report says:
	XIn areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern.
	Lord Burns did not suggest open season for all forms of hunting, and neither do I, but only where concerns, to which he referred in a general sense, can be shown to applywhere the need for pest control has been demonstrated and where alternative means of pest control are demonstrably more likely to involve suffering. The provisions in my Bill deal with that situation.

Stephen McCabe: I would like to clarify the position on registration. When someone applies for registration on the two tests of utility and least suffering, do they have to meet those tests only on application, or do they have to meet them throughout the whole period of registration? If the latter, how will that be supervised?

Alun Michael: Applicants would have to justify the period for which they were applying. The provisions in the Bill deal with that situation. The applicants would have to show that the activity that they wanted to undertake was necessary. Clause 8 sets out the tests of what is necessary for the protection of livestock, crops and so on. The evidence would have to satisfy the registrar or, on appeal, the tribunal. On both the cruelty and utility tests, a designated animal welfare organisation can also provide evidence to the registrar and to the tribunal about the activity. Furthermore, the applicants would have to show that they passed the cruelty test. They would have to show that the activity that they wished to undertake with dogs involved less likelihood of suffering than the alternatives that were practicable in their area.
	The measure is tough but fair, and it will be simple to enforce. I ask colleagues to consider that when the criteria can be met, the effect of a blanket ban would be to require the use of a method that is more cruelthat is, a method more likely to cause suffering. I am sure that that is not intended by those who support the idea of a blanket ban in principle. I simply ask colleagues to join me in testing the practical implications of different approaches as we consider the Bill further, to ensure that together we get it right. Again, bear in mind that any decision is not a licence to be cruel. The automatic conditions set out in clauses 27 and 28 impose a duty for any activity to be carried out humanely so that suffering is kept to a minimum. The error of the 1911 Act is avoided.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: I have given way many times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am conscious of your strictures about the number of Members wishing to speak. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who has tried several times to get in.

Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the practical consequences of the Bill. Has he seen the advice from Bill Swann, who used to work for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, that in his opinion the Bill will bring an end to foxhunting as a sport, and an end to foxhunting in low country areas by mounted packs? Mr. Swann has read the Bill. Is he right?

Alun Michael: Mr. Swann has made an interpretation of the Bill. As the Minister responsible for making sure that these matters will go to the tribunal, it would not be right for me to anticipate, but it is right for hon. Members to study the Bill and ask themselves whether Mr. Swann's conclusions are right. I hope that both today, in Committee and on Report, we will examine the practical implementation of the Bill. I ask no more of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members than to consider how the Bill applies.

George Osborne: rose

Nicholas Soames: rose

Simon Thomas: rose

Alun Michael: The tests, as I have said, are tough but fair. Supporters of hunting say that it is necessary, but that cruelty should not be allowed, so they should be satisfied that necessary activity will be allowed where it is not cruel.

Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Alun Michael: Those who oppose hunting should be satisfied that it will be allowed only where it is necessary and that the alternative methods would be more cruel. Some colleagues have asked why Parliament should hand over its prerogative to an unelected[Hon. Members: XGive way.] I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to continue giving way, but I recognise that that will cut into the time of Back Benchers who wish to contribute. I am not sure whether I should continue to give way or not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely a matter for the Minister whether he gives way or not. The whole House will have heard the comments that I made earlier. I trust that he will bear those in mind, and so will all hon. Members who wish to contribute later to the debate.

Alun Michael: I shall therefore be constrained, but I ask hon. Members to note that I have given way 21 times, I think, so far. However, it is a pleasure to give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).

Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As the welfare of the quarry species will be seriously compromised if stag hunting is banned, and also in many cases if foxhunting is banned, where is the sense in that, from the cruelty point of view?

Alun Michael: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The aim of the Bill is to deal with the issue of cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. The questions of welfarefor instance, of the deer herd on Exmooris a serious consequential issue which, in view of the culture that I mentioned in reply to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), needs to be tackled sensibly. It is foolish for people simply to say that they will ignore other methods of deer management or ways in which the herd can be properly controlled.

John McFall: Will my right hon. Friend take an example from Scotland, where the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 allows the culling of deer, so that we have proper control in dealing with pests? A foxes Act could be introduced to allow the culling of foxes while enabling those who wish to participate in foxhunting as a sport to practise drag hunting. We would then all be happy.

Alun Michael: I am delighted that my hon. Friend would be happy. I am not sure that the situation in Scotland precisely translates elsewhere, but there are lessons to be learned from the control of deer in other parts of the country.

George Osborne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He rests a great deal on the objective tests and tells us that he does not want to prejudge the tribunal's decision on whether lowland hunting meets them. In that case, why does he prejudge the tribunal on hare coursing, stag hunting, ratting and all the other activities about which he has spoken?

Alun Michael: For the simple reason that those activities fail to pass the test in general terms and that it would be a waste of time and a bureaucratic addition to the work of the registrar and the tribunal to allow that to happen.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He provides in clause 10 for the Lord Chancellor's Department to make rules that the tribunal will abide by and in clause 48 for this House to annul those rules by resolution if it so wishes. Is it his intention thereby to enable the House to consider whether the rules genuinely allow for hunting only in very restricted and special circumstances and to reconsider and perhaps annul them if they do not?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend points to a way in which the opinions of this House are respected in the drafting of the Bill.
	Some colleagues have asked why Parliament should hand over its prerogative to an unelected registrar or tribunal. The answer is that it will not do so. Parliament will make the law on this matter, as on every other. The registrar and tribunal

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but you will see on the Annunciator that there has been a serious disturbance at the Carriage Gates, which are now closed for exit and entry. In view of the fact that the Sessional Order that we passed on 13 November lays down that entry by Members of Parliament through New Palace Yard and in other ways should not be interfered with, if it has clearly been broken, can Mr. Speaker be notified so that action can be taken and those responsible detained not by the police, but by the authorities of this House[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the appropriate authorities will be investigating those matters even as we speak. I suggest that we now get on with the debate.

Alun Michael: I was explaining the situation regarding the tribunal and saying that Parliament would make the law on this as on every other matter. The registrar and tribunal will be required simply to interpret the legislation as similarly appointed tribunals do in other spheres, such as employment and housing. The tribunal will be a national body, not a local one. Colleagues who have worked in other spheres will know that simple cases can be dealt with quickly by a tribunal that has the capacity to focus on genuinely difficult cases whose circumstances could not have been anticipated in primary legislation.
	The registrar will have to be an independent person. We demand such independence in all sorts of circumstances in our parliamentary system. The Charity Commission is a good example in that regard. The registrar will have to have regard to the decisions of the tribunal in reaching his or her decisions. The registrar and tribunal will be strictly non-partisan. They must operate within the terms of the Bill and will not be able to exercise a discretion that it does not allow. They will not start with a blank piece of paper.
	The Bill clearly sets out two tests that must be met in order for any hunting with dogs to continue. Those tests must be the starting point for the registrar and the tribunal. It is highly likely that a body of case law will develop quickly, so that subsequent decisions can be made authoritatively and expeditiously. If hon. Members consider the challenges that any legislation has to facewe are now seeing such challenges in Scotland, more than a year after enactmentthey will see the strength of the Bill. Instead of a variety of complex court challenges, we will have a Bill that is based on principle and tested against evidence, and legislation that can be enforced without creating a legal bureaucracy that is dependent on prosecution and complex legal interpretation after the event.
	Those who say that the scheme is complicated should consider how it will work in practice. We will have simplicity in respect of enforcement that has not been offered by any previous Bill, and simplicity and clarity about who can and cannot do what. I have tested out the ideas with experienced senior police officers, who confirm that enforcement will be straightforward and involve a minimum of bureaucracy.
	Some have wrongly suggested that the Bill is a compromise pulled out of thin air and others that it is a vindictive attack on a beleaguered minority. It is neither. It is based on clear principles and on evidence against which they have been tested in a uniquely open and transparent process over the past eight months.

Adrian Sanders: rose

Alun Michael: I have given way on numerous occasions and I must make progress.
	Nothing better illustrates the tribal nature of this debate than the way in which those who support hunting have been encouraged to come to Parliament square today to make a great deal of noise. Given the time that I have taken to listen again and again to such groups, their representatives and groups of individuals who have been involved in protests of different sorts, some well mannered and others not, and also the way in which their genuine concerns have been taken into account, it is disappointing that they are not showing similar respect to the process and to Parliament. Of course, in a free society everyone has the right of peaceful protest, but I remind the Countryside Alliance and its supporters that the process that I have undertaken has involved them at every stage, has been every bit as open and transparent as they asked and has taken the Burns report as its starting point, as they asked.
	Those on both sides of the argument should recognise that it is now for Parliament to look at the outcome of that work and take the decisions. I am sure that the vast majority of those involved in the protests today are law-abiding people who will respect the law as determined by Parliament and indeed may regret the behaviour that is taking place. I ask the Countryside Alliance and its supporters, including the more extreme wings, which include some Opposition Members, to show to Parliament the respect that I have shown to them in the past few months. I also ask those who want to return to a different sort of Bill to bear it in mind that the way in which we deal with the Bill will say a great deal about the capacity of both Houses of Parliament to deal with issues that are difficult and wildly contentious. It is Parliament that has to take the decision, but we should reflect that decisions taken through sensible debate frequently make better law than those designed in the heat of the moment.

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance, as I could not help but notice that the Minister appeared to be reading about the blockage at the Carriage Gates as though he knew about it in advance. I dare say that he can clear up the matter by disclosing his text.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Alun Michael: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that when one has carefully prepared a text and things change, one adds words. If he wishes to see my notes, he will see that they contain no reference to the events at the Carriage Gates. Obviously, he does not have the flexibility to speak in such a way.
	I ask all hon. and right hon. Members objectively to examine the Bill, the clear principles on which it is based and

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the Minister's response, I dare say that he would be willing to give you an undertaking to place his notes, as they are, in the Library.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is even less of a point of order for the Chair.

Alun Michael: If it is of any interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be pleased to hand my notes to you immediately after I sit down, but I have to say that the hon. Gentleman demeans himself in his intervention.
	I was asking in reasonable tones that all hon. and right hon. Members should objectively examine the Billsomething that Opposition Members seem unwilling to doconsider the clear principles on which it is based and the evidence-based process that led to its drafting, and ask whether it will achieve what they believe in while being seen by the public as tough and fair and being strong enough to withstand legal challenges.
	Let us remember that while this is a difficult and contentious issue, it is not as important to the countryside generally as the issues with which my colleagues and I grapple day by day: the creation of jobs and opportunities in a strong rural economy, education, health, tourism, transport, post offices, services in rural areas and the future of farming and foodwhich was given a fresh lead and new hope by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs only last week.
	Yesterday the Sunday Express also helped to make the case for the Bill, although I am not sure that that was its intention. Its headline claiming that hunting had so far cost Parliament some #30 million was based on extremely dodgy arithmetic, but its point about the cost in terms of parliamentary time and opportunities and the impact on far more important parliamentary business was right.
	We cannot go on debating this subject year after year after year without a conclusion. That is why the Government gave a commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion, and that is why I have fulfilled the remit given to me by presenting a Bill that will prevent cruelty caused by hunting with dogs while dealing with the genuine needs of farmers, gamekeepers and land managersa Bill that will stand the test of time and make good, effective law. I commend it to the House.

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Hunting Bill because it seeks to impose unjustifiable restrictions on individual freedom, would increase the suffering of foxes and other animals that will be culled by less humane means, threatens the future of dogs and horses used in hunting and would rob British citizens of their livelihood; because it is intolerant of individuals who should be free to participate in hunting, which is not morally different from all other country sports and should not be singled out for discriminatory treatment; and because the Bill fails to uphold the duty of Parliament to defend the rights and legitimate interests of minorities.
	First, let me make it clear that there will be a free vote for Conservative Members on both Front and Back Benches.
	The Bill will turn into a criminal offence an activity now lawfully enjoyed by a small but significant minority of our fellow citizens. I agree with one thing the Minister said. He said that at the heart of the Bill lay a moral question, which, to my mind, is this: do the claimed benefits in terms of enhanced animal welfare justify the restrictions on individual liberty that the Bill, even in its current form, seeks to impose? I shall argue that the Bill will impose unnecessary and unjustifiable restrictions on individual freedom, that it will rob some of our fellow citizens of their livelihood and take homes from a number of families, and that, far from enhancing animal welfare, it will do that cause considerable harm.

Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman's arguments about the removal of the rights of a minority to pursue a particular activity are precisely the arguments that were used when bull-baiting, bear-baiting, cockfighting and otter-hunting were banned. Obviously, when we pass laws in this country people must obey them. If they do not, they criminalise themselves.

David Lidington: To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has taken a long and consistent stand in favour of an outright ban on all forms of hunting with hounds. What he does not take into account, however, is that when the aim is, through legislation and as a matter of public policy, to outlaw a recreation that has been lawful and enjoyed by a large number of peoplealbeit a minorityfor many years and many generations, the burden of proof should rest with those who wish to restrict individual liberty. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman or others on his side of the argument have proved their case.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend could develop his argument further by pointing out the necessity of measuring what is to be banned against what is to be allowed. If there is no distinction in principle between foxhunting and anglingwhich the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) enjoys so muchwhat possible case is there for banning foxhunting?

Tony Banks: You put the fish back.

David Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend has made an important point. It is clear to those who examine the details of the Bill that it is based on no consistent ethical principle.
	I was rather pleased when the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) teased out from the Minister something of what I believe to be the intention behind the Bill, suggesting that if it were enacted in its present form it might lead to the banning of hunting in most of lowland England and Wales while, perhaps, leaving it to survive in a few parts of upland areas. Certainly, it is clear that the Bill is very far from constituting any sort of compromise. The Minister would be horrified if he believed for a moment that as a result of his legislation the registrar would grant a licence to all or even most of the 300 or so hunts currently operating in England and Wales.

Nick Palmer: A number of Conservative constituents have told me that they will never vote Conservative again if the party maintains its commitment to reintroducing hunting if elected. Will the hon. Gentleman maintain that commitment?

David Lidington: I certainly repeat the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that were a ban on hunting to be enacted, we would, on our return to government, make time available for Parliament to reverse it. My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear, and we stand by it.

John Gummer: I would not like my hon. Friend to leave the morality question without thinking a little about the rather curious factif this is indeed a moral issuethat no known Church leader of any kind has ever said that hunting is immoral.

David Lidington: I bow to my right hon. Friend's superior theological and ecclesiastical knowledge. He has made an important point about the assessment of a moral debate.

Edward Leigh: Labour Members have suggested that hunting is akin to bear-baiting. Such sports, which were banned a long time ago, were intended to enable spectators to enjoy seeing an animal being tortured. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that simply does not happen in hunting? Most people who follow the hunt never see the kill. They are not doing it because they want to enjoy the kill; they are doing it as part of country life, and to control the fox population.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is rightand, according to my understanding of the present law, if a fox were baited as bears and other wildlife were centuries ago, that would indeed constitute a criminal offence.
	The Bill would make hunting a criminal offence unless it fell within the narrow range of exemptions defined in schedule 1 or, alternatively, had been registered under the system described in part 2. Much of the debate has centred on the registration scheme. I find it objectionable that the burden of proof in that scheme rests so clearly with the applicant for a licencewhich is stated clearly on page 6 of the Government's regulatory impact assessment. It will not be for the authorities to prove that cruelty takes place; if the Bill is enacted, hunting will be unlawful unless those who hunt can meet the tests of cruelty and utility described by the Minister. Those tests are defined in the Bill in such a way as to weaken the chances of a successful application.
	Let us first examine the utility test. The definition in clause 8 is extraordinarily narrow: it is, in effect, restricted to the work of pest control. That is the case despite all the discussion involved in the Burns inquiry, and all the evidence heard then about the relationship between hunting and conservation, the role of hunting in species management and its role in providing employment, especially in remote rural areas.

Patrick Cormack: If the Minister were to be truly fair, would not he allow the tests to be applied to the rural community, and to the hounds and the horses?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. It is striking that the Bill's definition of utility is narrower than that of the Minister in a letter to various interested organisations in April. The letter stated:
	X'Utility' addresses the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation.
	Even that list was inadequate because it failed to take account either of the point of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) or of the importance of hunting as a direct and indirect provider of employment in rural areas where other employment is not easy to find. Yet the Minister's description of only a few months ago was winnowed significantly before it reached the Bill.

Alan Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman making a case against a specific tribunal or tribunals in general? Surely the principle behind any tribunal is the need to make a positive case before it on the basis of law. The hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that the tribunal, if established, would be different from any other in the land and should therefore be opposed.

David Lidington: My argument is that if the Government want to criminalise people, they should define in law the activity that they believe should be outlawed. The burden of proof should rest with the prosecution. It should have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in court, as happens with other criminal offences.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that at the hearings in September, witnesses for all sides accepted that recreational activity should be considered a utility? Indeed, that is the only way one can make a consistent case for maintaining fishing and shooting.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. As he said, all sides, not only the Countryside Alliance, accepted that in the hearings in Westminster Hall over which the Minister presided.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman referred to employment earlier. I have never understood why people cannot go drag hunting and thus provide employment.

David Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman has not yet done so, he should study the detailed analysis of the Burns report, because it concluded that the impact on employment of banning hunting would be especially severe in remote rural areas, where it remains an important generator of work. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take it into account that drag hunting cannot easily substitute for foxhunting or mink hunting, and that it is not easy for people who are employed directly by hunts in specific specialist roles to transfer to other forms of employment, even if they can find them in areas such as Exmoor.
	Clause 8 tilts the balance still further against hunting. The applicant has to prove to the registrar not only that hunting would help in controlling vermin, but that it would
	Xmake a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage.
	Those words will further weight the scales against those who wish to apply for registration under the Minister's scheme.
	The cruelty test shows that the definitions have again been rigged to place applicants for hunting registration at a disadvantage. The normal requirement in animal welfare law is for the prosecution to prove that a defendant has caused unnecessary suffering to an animal. However, under the Bill, the applicant must prove his case, and that no other method of pest control would have caused Xsignificantly less pain, suffering or distress. Again, the qualifying adverb is important.
	If one relies on common sense or the evidence of the Burns report, all methods of killing a wild animal will involve some risk of causing pain, suffering or distress. As Lord Burns said in the House of Lords debate in March last year:
	XThere was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 533.]
	He argued that the scientific evidence that would justify firm conclusions about the cruelty of hunting was not available. Yet the Bill provides that the applicant has to prove his case that hunting is not cruel.

Adrian Flook: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Minister believes that the welfare evidence against stag hunting is incontrovertible. However, does he know that, according to the evidence of Professor R. C. Harris and Dr. Douglas Wise on the second day of the September hearings, such an interpretation cannot be justified? Does he agree that several vets, such as Douglas Wise and R. C. Harris, say that the Government should not dismantle one of Xthe few and best existing systems for looking after the deer on Exmoor?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes the point well. When one considers stag hunting, the veterinary evidence about the experience of the deer is divided. The evidence that Professor Bateson originally presented has been challenged by other veterinary surgeons. There is also a powerful argument, which was most notably made by my constituent Baroness Mallalieu, that deer hunting on Exmoor contributes to the overall health and conservation of the red deer herd in that part of the country.
	The Bill provides plenty of further examples of the way in which the terms of trade are systematically rigged against the continuation of hunting, especially in lowland regions. The Minister will have the power to designate animal welfare groups. Those prescribed groups will have the right to make representations to the registrar about any application. No equivalent right is granted to farmers, land managers or national park authorities, despite the strong views that they hold, as shown by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
	Under the Bill, the taxpayer will reimburse the animal welfare groups for their costs in making representations. We could therefore be in a position whereby the hunt has to pay for legal advice and any other expenses to do with its application and giving evidence to the registrar, whereas the animal welfare groupsone must assume that they are designated to present the case against an applicationwill stand to have their legal fees or other expenses reimbursed from taxpayers' money. That is indefensible.
	Let me give a further example. The Minister said that someone whose application for a licence was rejected by the registrar or tribunal must wait a minimum of six months before making a fresh application. However, no such limit applies to an application from one of the prescribed animal welfare bodies or anyone else to deregister a hunt that has been registered. So even if the hunts overcome the hurdles that the Minister is seeking to place in their way, they could be subjected to a continuous campaign of applications for deregistration, subsidised by the taxpayer, without any certainty that their registration, once granted, would be allowed to continue.

Edward Garnier: At the front of the Bill, the Secretary of State has made the declaration in relation to section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. As my hon. Friend proceeds with his speech, however, he exposes breaches of human rights line by line. Has he been advised by the Minister of how the Secretary of State came to issue that declaration?

David Lidington: I hope that this matter can be explored in Committee in due course. The Minister will have to explain whether that certification can stand up, in the light of the criticisms that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) advances.
	The central argument of those who support the Bill and those who have long campaigned for a ban on hunting is that a ban is necessary on the ground of animal welfare, yet it is clear that the Bill is based on no consistent ethical principle whatever. Foxhunting, beagling and mink hunting are to be subject to a registration scheme. Stag hunting and hare coursing are to be outlawed completely. If the Minister has the confidence that he expressed today in the principles of utility and cruelty, he should leave it to the registrar and the tribunal to decide the fate of those activities as well. Falconry is explicitly protected under the terms of the Bill. Shooting and angling are, at least for the time being, not mentioned. The argument that the killing of a wild animal should be prohibited unless someone can prove that the Minister's two tests can be passed could logically apply as much to those two sports as to hunting with hounds.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is making a most important point. In one of the weakest speeches that I have ever heard from the Government Front Bench, the Minister founded his argument on the principles of utility and least suffering, but if those principles are applied to other sports, notably coarse fishing, those sports will obviously and inevitably be banned in turn. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are, therefore, opposing the Bill on behalf of millions of other sportsmen whose activities are condemned by Ministers, even if they are not outlawed by the Bill?

David Lidington: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is no secret that some of the animal rights groups that have been to the fore in campaigning for a ban on hunting will want to move on, once that goal has been achieved, to campaign against shooting and fishing.

Douglas Hogg: I would like to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). The whole House has heard the definition of cruelty, as given by the Minister, relating to needless or avoidable suffering. All of us who practise country sports, such as the shooting of game birds and angling, know that those phrases can be used just as properly in the context of those activities as in the context of foxhunting. If that be the case, it is clear that game shooting and angling are next.

David Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. If we listen to comments from organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports, we learn that they are quite open about that being their ambition.

Peter Atkinson: I should like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) have just said. Match angling, in which the fish is kept in a keep-net and subsequently released, is specifically outlawed in Germany and Belgium.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly.

Tony Banks: Perversely, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is making a very good case for the Bill from an anti-hunting point view. I am sure that that is not what he wants to do. Because he is being diverted away from the Bill by interventions about game shooting and angling, will he make it quite clear that, although there will be some peopleincluding, probably, some in this Housewho would like to ban angling and game shooting, there is not a majority in the House to get such a provision through? There are probably some people who would like to ban the Tory party as well, but there[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

David Lidington: The difference between what the hon. Member for Newham has just said and what the Minister has said is that the hon. Member for Newham made his point about angling by saying that there was no majority in the House of Commons to carry a motion to outlaw the practice. The Minister, however, was not arguing on pragmatic grounds. He said that there were consistent ethical principles at work here. It is quite obvious from the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham that there is a complete absence of consistent ethical principles in the contents of the Bill.

Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. Friend tell me where he thinks that halal slaughter lies in the great sweep of the argument on principles and ethics?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) knows that there are a number of people in this country, as well as some of the animal welfare organisations, who object strongly to the practices of slaughter involved in the preparation of both halal and kosher meat. I remember from previous debates that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had to wrestle with precisely this issue when he had responsibility for it as a Minister. The argument that persuades me is that, whatever view I or anyone else may have on the slaughter practices involved in the preparation of these kinds of meat, the religious liberty of the Jewish and Muslim minorities in the United Kingdom is of much greater importance when we take that moral decision.

George Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for breaking from his excellent speech to give way to me. I would like to return to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)I think that is his proper titlewho gave the clearest possible indication that fishing and shooting would be next in line if the Bill went through, when he said that all that it would take would be to get a majority in favour of such measures in the House.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) sees the reality of what many of the animal rights groups actually intend.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend return to the matter of principle? The Minister has raised the matter of principle, but if it is to be anything other than a convenient phrase, it must be able to be applied everywhere else. My hon. Friend has listed a whole series of areas in which, if that principle were applied, people's normal activities would have to be banned. As the Minister has no intention of banning those activities, this is not a principle but a convenient series of phrases to be applied to the Bill to carry through what was the prejudiced view of the Minister before the Bill was introduced.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend is right. The sad truth about the Bill is that the Governmentcertainly the Prime Ministeraccept that a ban on hunting is undesirable and, in practice, likely to be ineffective, but the Government do not collectively have the courage to face up to their Back Benchers who have been campaigning for a ban for many years. So we end up with this shabby, unhappy Bill as an attempted compromise.

Anne McIntosh: In responding to these points, could my hon. Friend also carry West Ham with us in considering the issue of point-to-point racing, and its connection not only with the hunt but with national hunt racing? If there were dramatically few exempt hunts available, what would the future of national hunt racing be?

David Lidington: Precisely. That is a further example of why the utility test needs to be tightly drawn if the Bill is to apply much more widely than the Government propose. The irony is that it will do nothing to improve animal welfare. It does not propose to protect foxes, mink or hares. In fact, more animals will probably die if it becomes law. The reality is that a lot of farmers and land managers tolerate deer, foxes and hares because they support hunting as a sport.

Angela Browning: Is not that exactly why the farmers on Exmoor provide not only fodder, but cover, from which the wild deer benefit? If that all disappears, the wild deer herd will disappear too. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Minister did not answer my question. Either he has the information as to how long he anticipates there being a wild deer herd on Exmoor or he has not. Would it not be wrong if he has not made that calculation?

David Lidington: It would be quite wrong, but I do not have great confidence that the Government have done it.

Desmond Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Lidington: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then I want to move on to allow time for the many other Members who wish to take part in the debate.

Desmond Swayne: The experience of the New Forest is instructive in this respect. Now that the Buck hounds have disappeared, the forest supports vastly fewer deer, but the Forestry Commission is required to cull them in much larger numbers, as the previous regime merely dispersed the population throughout the forest. It did not kill very many at all.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The truth is that if hunting is ending, there will be little incentive for anyone who farms or owns land to conserve wild mammal populations that prey on their crops or livestock. Many of those animals that the Bill purports to help will almost certainly die more painfully if killed by methods other than hunting with hounds.
	One thing that came out again and again from the Burns report and all the debates around it is that shooting and snaring are indiscriminatemore animals are left to die a lingering death. I refer briefly to a letter describing the impact of the ban on hunting in Scotland and what it means in terms of animal welfare:
	XRecently a fox was seen to run within 50 yards of a Gun. A shot was fired head-on and the animal somersaulted. A second shot was fired as the fox ran away. He spun round then went to ground in a badger sett. It would be difficult to believe that this fox had not been hit at least once, probably twice. The Guns, all experienced shots, were making a sincere effort to kill the fox cleanly, but they failed. By law, we were then forced to leave this fox to live with his wounds, or die from them. In all my hunting life, I have never been party to causing suffering. In conventional foxhunting, it could never happen.
	If the Bill proceeds into law, more wild mammals will die the lingering, painful death that that correspondent describes.
	It is almost surreal that we are spending parliamentary and Government time debating the future of foxhunting when our country is on the brink of possible war in the middle east and we have major crises in our public services, but the Government have chosen to introduce the Bill. If they had wanted, as the Minister said, to spare Parliament that time, they need only have ignored their Back Benchers' campaign for yet another go at legislating on this topic.
	The Bill is intolerant, illiberal and arbitrary. It will restrict freedom and do nothing to help animal welfare. The House should reject it.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a point of order from Mr. Flynn.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I raise a point of order on the Sessional Orders? I walked across from Waterloo at quarter past 5 with extreme difficulty. May I say a word of thanks to the police? I quoted the Sessional Orders to them and they led me through a crowd of loutish people whose behaviour was very threatening. I witnessed at least one act of violence, which I am sure will be on the television tomorrow. What on earth are those people doing in believing that by holding up the London traffic and causing unnecessary disruption they can persuade anyone

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but that is not a point of order for the Chair. I call Mr. Banks.

Tony Banks: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Henry Bellingham: Nice tie, Tony.

Tony Banks: Thank you. Perhaps I ought to explain that this rather garish necktie, which has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman, was presented to me at a dinner in Scarborough on Friday night. I said that I would wear it for the debate on Second Reading, but it is not an attempt, as it were, to emulate the shadow leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whose sartorial taste defies adequate description. I shall not bother to press the button on the tie, as the House will get a rather tinny version of XJingle Bells. If the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) wants to borrow it while he makes his speech, I shall give it to him afterwards. The hon. Gentleman has diverted me totally from what I was going to say, but what the hell.
	The Scarborough and Whitby constituency has about six hunts, and what bothers people there is the fact that if the Bill is unamended they will still have six. They were certainly not happy about that. I do not altogether agree with them, however, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) inadvertently made a rather good speech from an anti-hunt point of view. He said why the Bill should be given a Second Reading and why it should be unamended. I do not happen to agree with him, but he made a good case suggesting that the Bill couldjust couldend hunting altogether. [Interruption.] We do not have to bother to amend it if it will, but I have to disappoint hon. Members, because that is exactly what we intend to do.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury concluded by saying that surely we have more important things to do. I can assure him that many people on both sides of the House who are bored with the issue would like to resolve it, which is why the Government have made it clear that the two Houses of Parliament will be given the opportunity to do so. Let us do that. We will never agree on the issue, but at least we can agree that we need to resolve it.
	Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman used exactly the same argument when my right hon. Friend the Minister made his statement on the Bill on 3 December. The hon. Gentleman said, XWhat are the Government's priorities when we end up with this statement before the one on A-levels? What happened when we reached the end of my right hon. Friend's statement and moved on to the statement on A-levels? Everyone got up and went outon both sides of the House, I might add.

Lembit �pik: rose

Tony Banks: I will not give way. The issue might not be the most important facing the countryit most certainly is notbut it is not unimportant and we have to resolve it.
	I do not intend to speak at length on the arguments over the Billcertainly not after the diversion caused by my tiebut I must make a few points on the issue. Parliament has been debating the matter of hunting wild mammals with dogs since 1893. There have been dozens of attempts to take Bills through the House. Most failed as they were voted down, talked out or abandoned, but the arguments simply do not go away, and they will not until we have resolved the issue. It is a moral issue about cruelty to animals. I take a straightforward view: it is wrong to take pleasure from the killing of animals. Indeed, it is as wrong to take pleasure from the killing of animals as it is to take pleasure from the killing of human beings.
	All the points that have been made about halal meat and so on are not the issue. There is a lot of cruelty in intensive farming, for example, and I deplore it, but no one can say that anyone takes pleasure from it, or from the halal process, although I would be in favour of stopping both.

Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very welcome that the Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, in negotiations with the Muslim community, has greatly reduced the suffering involved in the preparation of halal meat?

Tony Banks: Yes, indeed, I think that 90 or 95 per cent. of the animals killed using the halal process are now pre-stunned, and there is nothing in the Koran to prevent that. I hope that we will make it 100 per cent.
	This is not a class issue. If all those who went out hunting were registered members of new Labour, I would still oppose hunting. It is not a town versus country issue. Dozens and dozens of Members of Parliament with rural constituencies will be voting with me tonightmore, I suspect, than will be voting the other way. It is a moral issue and one on which we cannot compromise.
	Conservative Members have talked about hunting and tradition, but exactly the same argument was used about bull baiting, otter huntingonly recentlydog fighting, cock fighting, pig sticking, and so on and on. Some say that this is a matter of human rights, but we do not have rights as humans to torture and kill animals for pleasure. There cannot be any human rights involved in that.
	By definition, the animals cannot speak for themselves, so we will speak for them here in Parliament. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that, in my humble opinion, we cannot accept a licensing regime. We must support the Bill, because we need a Bill to amend. Some people on our side of the argument say that they will oppose it, but that is crass. Frankly, if it is defeated, hunting will continue. That is precisely why Conservative Members want to vote it down. There will not be another opportunity in this Parliament to end the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, so we must vote for the Bill on Second Reading and seek to amend it in Committee and on Report.

Anne McIntosh: I am happy to give West Ham a penalty pointI fear they may need it at the moment.
	Did I carry the hon. Gentleman with me on my remark about the contribution that horses that participate in hunting make to the future of the national hunt? Does he agree that if the number of exempt hunts was reduced to such a low level that the national hunt was jeopardised, this would indeed be a very bad Bill?

Tony Banks: It would be, if that was the conclusion, but the fact is that drag hunting provides precisely the same opportunities as foxhunting, so the hon. Lady's argument is not especially strong.
	The Bill is good in that it takes us a step further. I say that as one who has been consistent in opposing all forms of hunting wild mammals with dogs. The Bill bans hare coursing and deer hunting, which is good. The hon. Member for Aylesbury may have a point: it could end up with all hunting being finished through the licensing system or the failure to get a licence under the Bill. However, there is no guarantee. I commend the Minister for his valiant effort, as it takes quite a lot to unitealmostthe Conservative party and bring out its true face. So much for caring, compassionate conservatism, and welcome back to evil, nasty, vicious conservatism, which gives us back our compass so that we know what is really going on.
	The Bill is a good try, and if we did not have it we would have nothing to amend, but because it does not give a guarantee I cannot entirely support it as published, although I will certainly vote for it tonight. I look forward to seeing an end to hunting at long last. I hope that, by the end of next year, hunting will be finished. Then, of course, John Peel will have to find something else to do with his horn in the morning.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), whose knowledge, commitment and passion on this issue are widely recognised.
	As I represent a rural constituency with two hunts in it, I know that the issue generates high emotions and indignation on all sidescertainly to the extent that it creates serious disturbance outside the House, which none of us would endorse. The hon. Member for West Ham is right to say that the belief that it is a question of townies versus the countryside is misplaced. As a countryman, I do not feel that I am represented by some of the lobby groups who claim that country people should be pro-hunting. Many of my family are engaged in farming, and they have a variety of views on hunting, but I do not think that any of them will allow the hunt over their land, often for good, practical reasons. For example, livestock farmers at Mullion will not allow the hunt on their land because the participants are so inept that they worry the livestock, destroy the hedgerows and disturb the farmland.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is making a sensible point. Farmers and landowners who do not want the hunt to go across their land have only to say so, but plenty of them see the utility of having the hunt there, and they should not be prevented from exercising their free choice to allow it.

Andrew George: I appreciate that point, and no doubt the civil liberties theme will run through this debate, as it has through all our earlier debates on the subject. Many have said that this is a matter of principle and consistency, but I challenge anyone in the House to claim that they have been consistent throughout on all policies.

Nick Palmer: While we are talking about consistency, if a future Conservative Government proposed to take parliamentary time to reverse a ban, what would be the Liberal Democrats' position?

Andrew George: That is a matter for the Conservatives, but the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a range of views within all the parties, and we will cherish them all, as he will no doubt cherish all the views on the Labour Benches. The Liberal Democrats have been consistently in favour of a ban, and that will remain the case. Personally, I think that any review of that position is unlikely. However, I must say that this issue is monumentally less important than all the other country issues that concern me, such as rural housing, the future of farming, rural services and the potential devastation of the fishing industry, which may be literally only days away. Many hon. Members recognise that a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time has already been spent on this issue. Of course, it was not my decision to introduce this Bill, but now that that has happened, it is clearly important to deal with this issue properly and to get it right once and for all, rather than having it come back again.
	My concern is that the Bill compromises perhaps a little too much. I agree with the Minister when he says that one of its great strengths is that it is enforceable, unlike the previous failed Bill, which would not have passed the enforceability test for legislation. However, although the current Bill is strong in that respect, it does not set the thresholds for utility and cruelty sufficiently high to make it worth pushing such a Bill through Parliament. It compromises so much that it compromises the welfare of the Bill itself.

Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House by telling us whether it is still official Liberal Democrat party policy to ban hunting, and if it is not, is there a free vote on the issue?

Andrew George: I thought that I had already answered that question, but for the benefit of the hon. Gentlemanwho perhaps was not listening or was not present at the timeI shall repeat that the party policy is clearly in favour of a ban on hunting, and there is a free vote for Liberal Democrat MPs on that issue.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is so tribala point that the Minister has already madethat the last thing that we want to do is to add party political tribalism to it? It must be regarded as a matter of conscience.

Andrew George: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and as Conservative Members know, a range of views exists among them[Interruption.] Well, they may be embarrassed about that, but such a range does exist among them, just as it exists among Labour Members in this House, among Labour peers in the other place, and among Liberal Democrats. If we see this as a moral issue, it is right that we have a free vote on it.
	We will doubtless rehearse many of the arguments that we have had many times before, but I am looking forward to getting down to the nitty-gritty of the Bill itself. I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham is right in saying that amendments will be tabled to it. [Interruption.] As a Front-Bench spokesman, I shall ensure that I cover all of the issues that I want to cover in this speech. We must get down to the nitty-gritty of the Bill in Committee, because it is important to do so.
	I realise that there are Conservative Members who perhaps do not want to hear about these matters, but I was surprised at their failure to mention the importance of the future of farming. In fact, there are important farming matters that relate directly to the Bill. I hope that the Minister can clarify in his winding-up speechor in Committee, at leastthat the Bill does not unreasonably or inadvertently limit practical pest control measures on farms. I foresee that in a number of respectsI shall not detain the House by discussing them nowthe Bill may affect farmers' ability to implement effective, humane and efficient pest control measures.
	No mention has so far been made of the issue of fallen stock, which I questioned the Minister about when he made his initial statement. When the Bill is considered in Committee, it is important that the Minister reassure livestock farmers that cast-iron proposals are in place to assist them, should they lose a convenient outlet for fallen stock. It is clear that animal by-product regulations will ban on-farm burial from May next year. The Minister's Department is responsible for such matters, so it is important that he bring forward suitable measures. There is a greater likelihood of support in this House, and in another place, if we are reassured on that issue.

Alun Michael: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and others who may be concerned about this issue that we are indeed addressing it vigorously; however, the Bill is not the legislation to deal with it. I am entirely happy to discuss how the Bill relates to that issue, but it does not refer to it directly.

Andrew George: I appreciate that the matter may not relate specifically to the Bill, but the Minister will understand that it directly affects the likelihood of the Bill winning the level of support that he would like.
	I am also concerned that in certain circumstances, the utility argument may set

Henry Bellingham: My sister recently had to have her pony put down, and it was the west Norfolk hunt that did so and removed the carcass to its kennels. Who would have taken that carcass away had the hunt not been there? The council would not have done it, and it certainly could not have been buried.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is simply assisting me in making the point that such arrangements need to be in place. As I have already said, it is clear that on-farm burial will be banned from May next year. This is an important matter.

Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew George: Well, in doing so I am taking up the hon. Gentleman's own time.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good thing here, and I support what he is doing in calling for compensationif that is what he is doingor for alternative arrangements to hunts for farmers who wish to dispose of their stock. However, nowhere in this tawdry Bill does it remotely address the question of compensation for those whose livelihoods depend on the hunt.

Andrew George: I appreciate that a compensation culture exists in certain circles; perhaps it now exists among Conservative Back Benchers, rather than among Conservative Front Benchers. I have made the point about fallen stock, and I want to move on to another farming-related matter.
	I am concerned that the utility argument may set farmer against farmer. As I have said, many of the farmers in my family will not allow the hunt across their land, often for good practical reasons. However, in constructing a utility argument, we may find that one farmer argues that hunting is necessary in a certain area, but that a number of other farmers and landowners argue that they do not want hunting there. It is important that the Minister recognises that the measure may lead to an unwelcome conflict in rural areas, simply in order to enable an application for a hunting licence to be pursued.
	On clause 7, I further caution the Minister that he should not inadvertently criminalise the landowner who permits hare coursing on his or her land. Sometimes, such activity has taken place against the will of the landowner or farmer, has been enforced by a gang of thugs, and has resulted in serious physical assault on the landowner or farmer. The Bill needs amending in that regard. The Minister needs to recognise that the issue is the giving of permission, rather than where hare coursing happens to take place. On first looking at the Billand as my initial response to the recent statement made clearI felt that it constituted a de facto, workable ban on recreational hunting that none the less permitted efficient and humane pest control where necessary. However, I am not sure that it will actually achieve that; it needs strengthening in a number of respects.

Adrian Sanders: The Minister also used the word Xhumane, but to me Xhumane means by or of the human being. I cannot understand how, in any circumstances, a trained dog tearing another animal apart could be described as humane. Surely this Bill ought therefore de facto to outlaw all hunting.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We will have an opportunity to probe the boundaries of where permitted pest control should take place.

Peter Atkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew George: I will not give way any more. I am concerned that other right hon. and hon. Members will not be able to speak, so I will bring my comments to a close.
	The Bill will need strengthening in Committee. I will support amendments brought forward by othersand, if necessary, by meto strengthen the Bill so that there is a presumption that hunting is banned and applications are made for lawful, effective and efficient pest control.

Peter Atkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew George: I will not give way any more.
	Clause 48 provides an opportunity for future Secretaries of State to introduce regulationsnot primary legislationthat would substantially amend the legislation. The Minister and the Government should consider the clause carefully and amend it so that primary legislation will be required for any such changes.
	The Bill sets a number of challenges. The Minister has put himself in the political equivalent of a leper colony and seems to have alienated many of his Back Benchers as well as Opposition Members. However, I take my hat off to him for his bravery and commitment, not to mention the time that he has put into this. I hope that he will be as receptive in Committee as he has already shown himself to be and that he will accept reasoned and reasonable amendments that would strengthen the Bill in the manner that I have described.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Michael Foster: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on his speech and the position that he has adopted. I look forward to the contribution that he will make in Committee.
	I welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides to bring this matter to a conclusionprovided, of course, it is the conclusion that I and the majority of Labour Members want. I will be supporting the Bill's Second Readingit is not perfect but it is the vehicle that will deliver what I think the House and the country want. The Minister has made a brave attempt to find common ground on both sides of the argumentsufficient to let it pass through both Houses of Parliament. I fear, however, that he will find very little accommodation to this approach in the other place.
	I intend to let my right hon. Friend know of my concerns about the approach that he has taken and suggest three ways in which the Bill could be amended to keep it within its existing form and structure. However, I warn him that if these amendments were not to be made, there is a serious risk that more substantial amendments will be tabled.
	The Minister outlined two teststo prove the utility of hunting and that the alternative methods of culling are less humane. I am confident that in all probability, from what I have seen, read and experienced, the hunting of fox, deer, hare and mink would fail both tests. This is where I disagree with my right hon. Friend. His approach risks becoming a lottery for cruelty. We will not know which hunts can carry on and which cannot. This is a matter of conscience. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House hold very strong views, and it is no secret that I want hunting to be banned. I believe that it is my duty to vote accordingly, and to vote to make it happen, not to pass the buck to an unelected body to make that decision. Parliament is elected to make the difficult decisionsthe tough choices. I do not want the House to be undermined in this matter of conscience.
	Using the Burns report, as my right hon. Friend did for the basis of the Bill, I suggest that the following three areas should be amended. First, the Burns report concluded on hare hunting:
	XThere is little or no need to control overall hare numbers and, indeed, they are a Biodiversity Action Plan species. However, the distribution of hares is uneven: they are abundant in some areas, mainly in the east of England, and scarce in much of Wales and the West Country. Hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes and have a relatively small direct impact on hare numbers. A ban would therefore have little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests.
	Notice how Lord Burns put hare coursing and hare hunting together, as he did when he considered the manner of the hunt and the kill. He said later in the report:
	XThere is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that . . . this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.
	He said in the following paragraph:
	XWe are similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.
	Lord Burns reached exactly the same conclusion for hare hunting and hare coursing. I suggest that hare hunting should be included in the Bill and banned outright.

Gregory Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman think that shooting, poisoning, gassing or snaring any quarry would seriously compromise their welfare?

Michael Foster: That is self-evident. I assume that the hon. Gentleman knows that gassing and poisoning foxes would be illegal. As for shooting, Burns makes it clear that lamping has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting with dogs.
	I would also like my right hon. Friend to consider the activity known as cub hunting. The Countryside Alliance gives three reasons for the existence of cub hunting. It says that some 40 per cent. of foxes killed by registered packs are killed during cub hunting, it disperses the fox population and introduces young hounds to hunting. Burns concludes:
	XIt does not seem to us, from the evidence we received, that these arguments are wholly persuasive.
	The report continues:
	XIn the absence of a ban
	that is, assuming the status quo prevails
	Xconsideration could be given to a number of options for responding to the concerns about . . . cub hunting. These options include: prohibiting the practice entirely; introducing a closed season for hunting foxes, so that hunting would start at a later date than it does at present.
	I would like to pursue that issue at a later stage in the Bill.
	The third issue that I wish to consider is the practice of lowland foxhunting. The overall contribution to traditional foxhunting is relatively insignificant in terms of the number of foxes killed. Burns makes the distinction between lowland and upland hunting:
	XIn lowland areas hunting by the registered packs makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population, and terrierwork, especially by gamekeepers, may be more important.
	I would like to explore the distinction between lowland and upland hunting later in the Bill's passage. However, I warn my right hon. Friend of the inconsistency that terrierwork will be included in the Bill but lowland hunting will not. That issue needs to be addressed.

Lembit �pik: Am I right in understanding that, on the basis of the evidence that we have both seen, the hon. Gentleman accepts that in some upland areas hunting with dogs may not be the most cruel way in which to control the fox population? I am not trying to trick him into saying anything about lowland foxes.

Michael Foster: I am always wary of the tricks that the hon. Gentleman might play. When I introduced my private Member's Bill in 1997, I exempted the flushing out of foxes to be shot in upland areas because of the distinction between the pest control method used in upland areas, such as in parts of Wales, compared with lowland hunting.
	I have been involved in both the hunting Bills since 1997 that have had their Second Reading. Both were full of promise but also full of uncertainty because of the time and the opposition that they faced. The Minister can do the House a great favour by clarifying that the Bill will be brought to a conclusion and that the other place should take heed of that. Members of this House were elected and our views should ultimately prevail. In the words of the odd poster or two that I have seen todaylisten to us.

Nicholas Soames: In my 20 years as a Member of Parliament, it has been my privilege to speak in every debate on hunting. However, I do so today with a genuinely heavy heart as, despite all the Government's protestations to the contrary, it is clear that they are determined to destroy hunting and following that, both shooting and fishing[Interruption.] Noises from the Government Back Benches show that my assertion is correct.
	It shows a perverted and grotesque sense of the ordering of the Government's priorities that, at a time when the British economy is reeling from the worst trade deficit in goods since 1697, when the pensions of millions of our fellow citizens are affected by a deeply serious crisis from which the Government appear to want to run away, when, after all the Government's fine and wholly unbelievable talk, the public transport situation is catastrophic, and when they have lost their way in dealing with immigration, health, drugs and crime, they seek to introduce such a draconian Bill. It shows a want and a lack of proportion, and a misunderstanding of the feelings of ordinary people that is wholly astonishing.

Gregory Barker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest polling evidence shows that only a minority of the public support a ban and that even that support has fallen to a 10-year low?

Nicholas Soames: That is indeed wholly correct and offers further evidence of the foolishness of the Bill.
	I want to make it plain that, without question, most people who oppose hunting are largely fuelled by a cocktail of ignorance, spite and vindictiveness. Their case is made the more irrelevant for that. Of course, I accept that some of our fellow citizens genuinely disapprove of hunting with hounds and that some of them feel so strongly about it that they would support a ban criminalising the activity. My response, however, is that those reasons do not even begin to justify depriving the individual citizen of the right to take part in a lawful activity and that it would be a deeply damaging day for all our freedoms if ever they were held to do so.
	Hunting with hounds is a lawful activity in which ordinary men and women in the United Kingdom have engaged for centuries. Most of the hunts in existence in Britain today are well over 100 years old. They have a tremendous pride in their traditions and in their contribution to the life of the countryside and to its conservation. Many of them play a vital role in the life of hard-pressed rural communities.
	I want to make it plain to the Minister that, having hunted all my life and having listened with the greatest care for many years to all the arguments, I truly believe that a ban on hunting would not only have a profoundly adverse impact on the welfare and, in some areasfor example, the west countrythe very survival of the quarry and other species, but would also be a gross abuse of human rights and individual freedoms, and would thus be open to legal challenge. Furthermore, it would continue to be a cause of deep-seated contempt and resentment throughout rural communities.
	With a large number of my family and 407,000 of my fellow citizens, I took part in the march for liberty and livelihood. As we marched past the Cenotaph, I was deeply moved at the solemnity with which people removed their headdress as a mark of respect and gratitude to those who died in two world wars for the cause of freedom.
	Although I do not expect Labour Members to understand the concept, it must be true that all those people who gave their lives would wonder today whether the pursuit of liberty and their final sacrifice for the defence of freedom against tyranny was worth dying for[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Nicholas Soames: When one contemplates Labour Members, one realises that all those people who gave their lives would be deeply and rightly horrified, and above all mystified, that a land that used to cherish the cause of freedom above all else could have sunk so low.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that freedom is about allowing other people to do things of which one profoundly disapproves? It is not merely about allowing people to do things with which one agrees.

Nicholas Soames: Indeed. My right hon. Friend is correct. More should be made of that point.
	In fairness to the Minister, he conducted an even-handed consultation process. I am glad that he took trouble over it, but his conclusions are plain wrong. The National Gamekeepers Organisation took a huge amount of trouble to brief the Minister and his officials on the various uses that keepers need to make of their dogs. In fact, the organisation was the only shooting body invited to give evidence to the public hearing, but its views were almost wholly ignored. That is one by-product of an ill-judged proposal.
	However, neither in the excellent Burns report nor in any of the consultations was there any proven evidence of cruelty. For example, no evidence was produced in DEFRA's hunting consultation that would necessitate a ban on either deer hunting or coursing. Indeed, the proposed exemption for ratting and rabbitting shows a complete lack of consistency. If it is acceptable, in moral and animal welfare terms, to use a dog to hunt a rabbit or a rat, why is it not acceptable to use a greyhound to hunt a hare? Indeed, I assert that both deer hunting and coursing, as evidenced by independent observers, have strong utilitarian value and are conducted to the highest standards.
	The truth is that no case has been made to justify a ban on any form of hunting. There should thus be a presumption in favour of issuing hunting licences; when turning down an application, the burden of proof should be with the licensor rather than that hunting people should have to justify why they require a licence. Those matters will have to be dealt with comprehensively in Committee.
	It is surely not the role of Parliament to initiate the passage of bad law to the statute book. Its role should be rather that the love of liberty and the tolerance of the views of othersespecially views of which one disapproves, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) saidshould be made the cornerstones of our parliamentary democracy.
	Members on the Labour Back Benchesthe Government's Lobby foddermust be clear that the real issue in this debate is whether it is right for the continuing advance of the power of the state to encroach on our liberties as citizens. Members on the Conservative Benches wholly oppose this rotten Bill.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) talked of what we fought for during the last war but I do not remember that very great man, his grandfather, saying, XWe will fight them on the hunting fields.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he took part in the march of the Countryside Alliance. It was appropriate that he should do so because the march was overwhelmingly Conservative. A MORI poll of people on the march found that 82 per cent. of them were Conservative voters and that 9 per cent. were Liberal Democrat and 4 per cent. Labour voters.
	The hon. Gentleman supports an amendment tabled by his Front-Bench colleagues that includes the incredible hypocrisy that the Bill
	Xwould rob British citizens of their livelihood.
	The Burns report, which the hon. Gentleman described as Xexcellent[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman said that the report was excellent, so his hon. Friends should argue the point with him. The report states that 700 jobs are directly connected with hunting, yet the Conservatives believe that at a time of ultra-full employment those jobs should be sacrosanct.
	Between 1979 and 1987, the Conservative Government reduced the number of coal miners from[Hon. Members: XAh!] Yes, coal mining is a countryside industry; it is a rural industry. The Conservatives reduced the number of coal miners from 232,000 to 17,000, but the Countryside Alliance did not march for the coal miners; it marched for cruelty[Interruption.] That is what the Tory party is about. It is a satisfaction for me to see how the Tories conduct themselves because they remind me of why I am a socialist.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) referred to what the Bill is about. It is important that he did so, because although we shall vote for the Bill's Second Reading, we do so in order for it to become the vehicle for a complete ban.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester talks about the ban on stag hunting. The Burns report says that 160 stags are killed each year. I am glad that will save them. My hon. Friend rightly distinguishes between hare coursing, which the Bill will ban, and hare hunting, which it will not necessarily ban. The Burns report says that 250 hares a year are killed by hare coursing, but 1,650 hares are killed by hare hunting, so the Bill will allow most hare killing to continue. Howeverthis is why my right hon. Friend the Minister has introduced a Bill, the quickness of whose words could deceive the eye, but should notthe Burns report points out that between 21,000 and 25,000 foxes are killed every year, so the Bill will make about 95 per cent. of present hunting licensable. That is why it is utterly unacceptable to a large majority of Labour Members, and it is why we will vote to ban it.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) said that we need to deal with this issue once and for all, so that it does not come back again, and he is absolutely right. The only way that we can do that is by enacting a complete ban. This issue will come back to the House time and again until we get a complete ban.
	One of the first Bills that I supported when I was elected to the House of Commons more than 32 years ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), was intended to ban hare coursing. After nearly 33 years, we still have not got that ban. I will remain in the House, if necessary, for another 33 years to get it, but I have got other things to do in the second half of my parliamentary service. I want to get this done in this Session.
	The key thing is that, by Thursday, we had 192 signatures for a complete ban. We can get more; we will get more. If we have a free vote, we will ban hunting. I want my right hon. Friend to clarify when he replies to the debate tonight that, if the House votes for a ban, that is what Parliament will enact.
	I was a Minister when we used the Parliament Acts to put aircraft and shipbuilding into public ownership. The parliamentary process is simple and clear. When my right hon. Friend the Minister responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) during his statement, he promised that, if the House of Lords blocks whatever the House of Commons decides, the Government will reintroduce the Bill at the beginning of the next Session. I trust him; I believe him. We have to do our part by amending the Bill to bring about a ban. I will then rely on my right hon. Friend and the Government to ensure that the ban becomes law so that, in the words of the hon. Member for St. Ives, we do not have to deal with this issue again because, if we do, we will and will and will.

Douglas Hogg: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), I wish to express my total opposition to this Bill. I do so on the ground that it is a profoundly illiberal Billthe kind of legislation that brings a democracy into disrepute. The plain and simple fact that one part of society may disapprove of the activities of another part of society is not a good or sufficient reason to ban those activities.
	Many activities cause death or injury to animals. Some of them are justified in terms of medical research; others are justified in terms of religious beliefhalal meat, for exampleand others in terms of sport. The House is addressing the issues involved in the latter category tonight. Most notable among those activities, of course, are angling, shooting and fishing. The central question that the House ought to ask itself is whether there is a substantial and significant difference between angling, shooting and hunting with hounds. If the answer is that there is no such difference, surely there are only two conclusions to which an honest person can come: either all those activities should be subject to the Bill, or none of them should be subject to it, and I happen to believe that none should be.

Lembit �pik: Is not the other possibility that, if that issue were not addressed, a so-called total ban would create an inconsistency? Surely it would imply that shooting, fishing and angling might indeed be next.

Douglas Hogg: Yes, indeed, that is precisely the case.
	I bring some modest experience to this matter; it is perhaps not so considerable as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex. I am a modest angler. I have practised beagling and I support the local hunt, and I have shot game birds all my life. My considered view is that there is absolutely no difference of principle between any of those activities.
	Let us first take angling. For coarse fishing, there are no arguments of utilitysuch fish are not pests and they are generally not eaten. The justification for fishing lies in the pleasure of the sport. That is a perfectly genuine and proper justification, but let us be clear that, to use the words of Lord Burns, the welfare of the fish is seriously compromised because many are killed and all are injured.
	The Minister used the phrase Xneedless or avoidable suffering when defining cruelty. The phrase Xplaying the fish is no euphemism. Most honourable people would accept that fish feel pain or, at least, that that should be the working assumption. The fact that fish are scaly, not furry, and cold-blooded, not warm-blooded are, of course, differencesbut they are not distinctions that go to root of the argument.
	I want to say something about shooting, which I know a lot about; I have shot all my life. I am talking about game shootingshooting pheasants and partridges. Again, we are not talking about arguments of utility because pheasants and partridges are not pests. Of course they can be eaten, but that is not the primary reason why people shoot; they go shooting for the sport and to exercise their skill, to be in the countryside, to meet their friends and to see the dogs work. That is a perfectly proper thing to do, but the welfare of the bird is seriously compromised, to use Lord Burns's phrase. The lucky ones are shot dead. The less lucky ones are wounded and picked up later. The very unlucky ones fly away with buckshot in them and die later, slowly through starvation or because they are eaten by foxes.
	The truth is that there is no difference between those activities; they are all acceptable or they are all unacceptable, and I happen to believe that they are all acceptable. In any event, they are surely moral and ethical issues to be considered by individuals, not by Parliament.
	I know that I have only a few minutes more, so I shall be very brief. The second point that I want to make is that hon. Members should be very chary about imposing on others their own view of what is right and wrong, especially when the criminal law is involved. I deem many activities to be wrong, but I do not wish to ban them.

John Gummer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Douglas Hogg: I am afraid that I will not give way.
	I am very concerned about religious slaughter, but I would not ban it; nor did I when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not like boxing, but I would not seek to ban it. I find obscenity and pornography deeply degrading, but I am not in favour of censorship, and I would not intervene through the criminal law. I accept that abortion raises moral issues of major importance, but those are matters for the individual, not for Parliament.
	That brings me to my final point. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, I joined the two countryside marches. I was at the demonstration in Hyde park. I look forward to welcoming my local hunt at my house in Lincolnshire in February. They are a cross-section of society: honourable, respectable, law-abiding and decent, and the very bedrock of the society that I recognise and for which my hon. Friend's grandfather fought. If we strain their loyalty by doing things in this Bill that are so manifestly wrong, we diminish ourselves and cut at the very foundations of a democratic society.

Desmond Turner: I have not seen such passion from the Opposition Benches for a long time. That passion is not directed in defence of the freedom of individuals to have jobs or not to be poor; it is the kind of passion that their forebears probably exercised, 150 years ago, when Parliament was debating banning bear baiting or public executionsit is not very different.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) defended his sporting interests by saying that we should allow people to do things of which we disapprove. I am happy for him and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) to dress up in ridiculous coats, get up on their horses and gallop around the countryeven with dogsas much as they want, as long as they do not hunt and kill foxes. They can have drag huntsif they want to break their necks by jumping over ditches, that is fine. That is an individual liberty that I will defend on their behalf. What I find repugnant is the inevitable cruelty and the sport based on ritual killing.

Lembit �pik: rose

Hugo Swire: rose

Desmond Turner: I shall not give way as I do not wish to detain the House for long. I want to present some of the evidence that was submitted to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs inquiry, which is relevant to the issues in the Bill of utility and cruelty.
	On the question of utility, much of the defence that has been put up for hunting has concerned controlling the numbers of foxes. A fairly definitive piece of work by Baker and Harris was published in Nature, the most reputable journal in its field, which studied the fox populations. Basically, they divided the country up into kilometre squares and went around counting the fox droppingsthat is the way to assess animal populations. One of the blessings of foot and mouth was that, for a long time, hunting could not take place, so it was possible to examine the effect of hunting on the fox population. If anything, the fox population decreased during the period when hunting was banned. There was no difference between areas that were normally hunted and those where there had not been hunting. The argument about utility, therefore, does not stand up in relation to lowland hunting.

Simon Thomas: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the speciousness of his argument? First, all his argument proves is that foxes were being killed, albeit in perhaps more cruel ways than hunting. Secondly, does he realise that reports in Wales found clearly that, on the 118 farms surveyed, there were 1,600 extra killings of lambs during the year of foot and mouth? There is a cost attached to not controlling the fox population in this country.

Desmond Turner: I am afraid that those who have undertaken systematic studies would disagree with the hon. Gentleman. They would conclude that the most potent factor in controlling numbers of foxes is neither hunting nor lamping but availability of food. Whatever control methods are used, the effect on the fox population is minimalit can only account for a small percentage of it.
	I seem to remember reading newspaper reports, which were fairly convincing, that in the area of the Beaufort hunt, foxes were being fed to make sure that there were enough of them to hunt. I therefore do not think that controlling fox numbers is an argument that can be used to support hunting, even in upland areas. If one believes that controlling fox numbers is a necessityI do notother, more humane, methods can be used. Those methods, of course, are not so much fun. They do not involve dressing up in fancy clothes, galloping around and blowing horns.

Tony Banks: When the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) was telling the House that my father, among others, was fighting at El Alamein to defend fox hunting, fox hunting was banned in this country, although, of course, there was no alteration in fox numbers. If they were fighting for fox hunting, it was a funny old war, as it was banned in this country at the time.

Desmond Turner: My hon. Friend makes a totally supportive point.

Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Desmond Turner: No, I have given way enough.
	On the issue of cruelty, I shall quote what some people said to the DEFRA inquiry. One of the most telling quotations was from Huntsman Jones of the David Davies foxhounds, an upland hunt in Wales. Mr. Jones was asked the following question by a representative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals:
	Xwhat modifications of activity are possible that would eliminate the unnecessary suffering, the cruelty, that would be involved from the chase and unpredictabilities of the kill?
	He replied:
	XI do not think there is any way you can.
	Huntsmen were in agreement that there was no difference in terms of cruelty between upland or lowland hunting. One said:
	XIt is no more cruel at 3,000 feet than at 1,000 feet.
	I shall follow the same course of action as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, not because I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister has got the approach righthe has made a noble effort, but he is doomed with that approachbut because we must have a vehicle that can be amended to produce a total, outright ban on hunting with dogs.

John Gummer: The Minister introduced his speech by saying that this was not a compromise but a matter of principle, that he would adduce certain principles that he would apply, and that that would give us an objective way of handling this matter. He proceeded to say that he would not apply those principles to stag hunting or hare coursing. That was evidently because he had already applied them and decided that they did not meet the facts. He then said that he would not apply them to rabbitting and ratting. The principles are very difficult to understand. He could have said, XI am going to do my best to get everyone together, and I will do that by satisfying my Back Benchers by banning a bit, by making a bit difficult and by allowing another bit. We could have understood that, and that is what he has done. However, to suggest that such proposals are based on principles is manifestly untrue.
	I do not believe that the rabbit would understand the principles, nor, indeed, would the rat, but what is the reason for the distinction between the two animals? The distinction has come about for the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) gave. Certain animalsfish and other beingsare less cuddly than others. That is a sentimental reason, but not one of principle. People feel more sentimental about some animals than others.
	We should approach the issue by using principles. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, either it is wrong to hunt, fish or shoot in any form or it is not. The fact that a distinction has been made shows that the proposals have been introduced not for reason of principle or animal welfare, but, as we have heard again and again from Labour Members, because they are intended to get at a particular section of the population. It was a matter for great sadness for those Labour Members when they discovered that that section is not made up of a lot of toffs, as they thought, but of a widespread group of people from the countryside.
	The Bill's supporters then said that it is a matter of morality. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that it might be more sensible to allow people to make up their own minds about morality. One of the issues that I dealt with as a young politician resulted from the Wolfenden report. We argued that what was sinful in some people's minds should not be made illegal. Many of those who fought against us said simply, XI find this repugnant and, therefore, I do not believe that it should be legal. That is precisely the argument that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) used. He finds something repugnant, so everyone must accept his view. When my right hon. and learned Friend said that we should be careful about imposing our morality on other people, someone on the Labour Back Benches shouted, XThat is what we are here for.
	The position has wholly changed. The Labour party used to be about the enlargement of freedom and the provision of wider choice on issues on which many people, including many on this side of the House, wished to enforce their own sense of repugnance. I find it repugnant that people voted in favour of saving foxes when, only a few days earlier, they voted on killing babies. Although I find that repugnant, I accept that, in this topsy-turvy world, it is possible to kill babies and call that moral and yet call the killing of foxes immoral. [Interruption.] Some of us stand up for morality across the board and not just for what happens to suit our particular voters in particular circumstances.

Desmond Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No; I will continue with my speech.
	We also have to deal with the issue of sustainability. I notice that the Labour party says that sustainability should be at the heart of government. Therefore, when the national park authority in Exmoor says that the only way to keep the stag population sustainable is by continuing with the system that has achieved that goal for generations, the Labour party and the Minister cast that view aside and say that they will find another way. This Minister has not shown a huge ability to find another way on rural matters up to now. I suspect that he will not on this issue.
	The final issue is practicality. The Minister refers to a practical system. However, all the legal advice that we have already received shows that the Billunder a good number of headingswill find itself in the courts again and again. It makes distinctions between people in similar situations, it makes distinctions that have no moral or principled base, and it makes distinctions that could not pass any test in the European Court of Human Rights.
	The Bill is also not practical in its suggestion that the police will enforce it. That suggestion comes from a Government who only last week showed that they give even less money to rural police forces than they give to other police forces. Police forces are stretched all over the country, but they are supposed to enforce a Bill that goes wholly against the views of a majority of people in the country. The situation will be so unfair that while the opponents of hunting will be able to seek deregistration again and again at the taxpayers' expense, those who wish to continue with what has been a legal activity for generations will have to pay all their expenses themselves.
	The Bill is not about huntingit is about prejudice, class hatred and all those things that new Labour was supposed no longer to believe in. We have seen precisely what we knew we would seeantagonism for the countryside, for anybody who has a different way of life and for anyone that Labour Members feel they have a need to attack. They have nothing else to offer the people of Britain, and the people of Britain are beginning to catch on.

David Winnick: The debate has demonstrated that there is no meeting point between those who want the existing situation to continue and those of us who are determined that there must be change and a total ban on hunting with dogs. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that we were class motivated. He may believe that, and he is entitled to that view. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I believe that, even if a different social group were involved, my opposition to hunting with dogs would remain as firm as it is. The right hon. Gentleman said that hunting is not carried out by toffs any longer, but by a wider social group. That fact has not changed my mind or the opinion of my hon. Friends.
	The argument has been used that debating hunting is a waste of parliamentary time. If that were so, we would never be able to debate the subject or any issue concerning animals because there is never a shortage of other foreign and domestic issues to debate. That would be very odd. If there were a total banas I hope there will beand Conservative Members tried to reverse it in future Parliaments, would they then argue that debating the issue was a waste of parliamentary time? I very much doubt it.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Winnick: No, I wish to continue my speech.
	The official Opposition's spokesman made the position clear. If there is a ban on hunting, it is our duty to warn the country during the general election that, if there is a Tory majority in the House of Commonswe should not forget the words that have been uttered todayit is likely that the ban imposed by this Parliament would go in a Parliament dominated by Tory Members.
	Bull baiting was mentioned. It is such an obvious subject for a ban that perhaps the issue should not even have been raised. When, however, the first attempt was made to prohibit bull baiting in April 1800, the Bill did not make much progress. It was defeated and its opponents said that it was
	Xpetty, meddling, to gratify petty personal motives . . . would only give additional means of vexing and harassing one another.
	Such was the opposition to an activity that even Conservative Members would agree is totally unacceptable.
	Those are much the same words as we hear used today against a ban on hunting with dogs. As for wasting parliamentary time, in 1800 they debated that issue when this country was involved in a major war with France and there was a fear of invasion.
	I have no sentimental illusions about foxes. They are a danger and measures are necessary to cope with them. I recognise the arguments; it is merely a matter of what method should be used to control and contain them. The two sides are divided on what constitutes the least cruel way of dealing with them, and that sharp divide cannot be met.

Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Winnick: No. I want to continue.
	Our view, which is supported by a clear majority in the country, is that it is unacceptable that animals, including foxes, should be hunted down with dogs with a scent for blood. They are often torn to pieces when still alive. There can be no possible justification for that.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on making progress on the subject. As hon. Members said, he has devoted a great deal of time to finding a solution to the problem, and has been conscientious. However, it is simply not possible to compromise on hunting with dogs. We must go further and have a total ban.
	In the other place, Lord Ferrers said that fox hunting is a sport that has been going on for hundreds of years. He said nothing about controlling foxes; he merely said that it is a sport. Future generations will find it very difficult to understand how such activity has continued into the 21st century. Minorities have rightsI have often spoken in favour of minorities and no doubt will continue to do sobut majorities have rights as well. If there is a clear, sharp difference of opinion between the minority and the majority in the House on an issue such as hunting, the majority must prevail.
	Obviously I will vote for Second Reading, for all the reasons explained by my hon. Friends. The Bill needs to receive a Second Reading and I hope that that will be by a large majority. However, it also needs to be amended in Committee. If it is not, the argument will go on in this and future Parliaments. My argument with the Government is that the problem should have been resolved in the last Parliament. We had the majority to do so and we should have taken advantage of it. Like anyone who is in favour of a total ban, I am not going to be intimidated by the Countryside Alliance or the hooliganism and occasional violence with which that cause is associated, including as it has been today.
	If the Bill is amended and it is clear that a largeindeed, overwhelmingmajority of Labour MPs want a total ban, we know that the Lords will throw it out. I hope that in those circumstances the Government will have the courage to use the Parliament Act. The issue must be resolved at long last and the way to do that is with a total ban. That is what the majority of hon. Members and, I believe, the majority of people in the country want.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) says that a clear majority in the country favour a ban. That is plainly wrong. Eight out of the nine last polls between July 1999 and October 2002 clearly show that only a minority support a ban. When I was first elected, the League Against Cruel Sports told me that the majority in my constituency supported a ban. I am sure that that was the case in many constituencies. However, people have started to think about the issue and that has changed the way in which they vote on it. It is the Chamber that is out of kilter with public opinion. For that reason, it is dangerous to invoke an argument about a majority when one does not have one. Incidentally, it is worth pointing out that the Government were elected with 42 per cent. of the vote. Some 58 per cent. of people voted against the Labour party. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the tyranny of the minority is a justification to ban hunting with dogs.

Kevan Jones: When did the hon. Gentleman change his mind? When I was a member of Newcastle city council, he was a member of the Liberal Democrat group in the city. I do not remember him having strong views on the subject. He certainly did not support the line that he takes now.

Lembit �pik: In 1992 I actively supported a ban on hunting with dogs. Like many people in this country, despite being told that a majority in my constituency wanted a ban, I considered the issue and was not able morally to support a position that seemed incorrect. As a very educated politician from Newcastle upon Tyne, sooner or later the hon. Gentleman will see the light. In the meantime, I shall pray for his soul.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit �pik: No. I need to make progress.
	Hon. Members talked about principles. Let us consider the principles that came out of the three-day hearingthe seminal debatein September 2002. Lamentably, many of the hon. Members who oppose hunting and support a ban did not bother to attend. All three key organisations accepted that foxes need to be controlled. It is not a question of whether we kill foxes, but of how. Sadly, those who keep talking of a total ban focus entirely on one single process to kill foxes rather than looking at the whole picture.
	Lord Burns, in his important inquiry, said that killing a fox with dogs is not necessarily the most cruel way to do it. The Minister has accepted that in certain circumstances and, in fairness, so have the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and others. Crucially, there was some consensus among all groups on that and other issues. Various key points arose, including that the prevention of undue suffering is a prime concern. It was also clear that the motive behind the use of a particular activity was not a consideration in banning it. If that were the case, angling and other sports would have to be banned because they are enjoyed and involve harm to animals. Another important principle was recreational use. All sides accepted that that was a utility that should not be discounted to zero. The use of dogs to hunt animals is acceptable in certain circumstances. Once again, there is nothing in principle that is wrong with using dogs to kill animals.

Simon Thomas: Did any evidence to the three-day hearing include, as part of the utility argument, the principle of sustaining a living and viable countryside from the aspect not only of people working in the countryside, but of biodiversity too?

Lembit �pik: The discussion on that was equivocal because there was no consensus around a particular principle. However, hon. Members will have noted the hon. Gentleman's point.
	The principle that suffering can be reduced by modifying practices was accepted. Scientific opinion was clearly divided on the degree of suffering caused by the chase of an animal. No one came up with unequivocal proof that it was cruel to chase the animals and that they felt suffering. However, we did accept that there is a problem with wounding when an animal is shot. In other words, while the kill is almost always instantaneous with dogs, killing a fox with guns is sometimes a messy business that can be drawn out, which causes a lot of suffering.
	Another crucial principle was that specific activities within the range of methods involving the hunting of wild animals with dogs can be regulated and controlled. The point was also made that regulation can work because hunts have the capacity to modify their actions. We know that because one of the witnesses who monitored hunts, who was an anti-hunt protester, said that the behaviour of hunts often changed when he observed it. So hunts can regulate and control their behaviour, and inspection works.

David Taylor: As someone who represents a constituency in which fox hunting takes place on a reasonable scale, can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether regulation and registration can work? How can hunts control that small but dark underbelly of people who are involved in some of the cruellest practices of all, such as terrier cubbing and so on?

Lembit �pik: That is why I support licensing and regulation. It was a hunt monitor himself who said that hunts behaved differently when he watched them.
	It is sad that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) did not have time to hear the rest of the debate, because I want to deal with the weakness of calling for a total ban. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North also called for that, but no one has explained what a total ban means.
	If we look at Scotland we see the mess that is created when we try to ban hunting with dogs, because all that has changed is the fact that instead of riding horses to hounds, people ride horses while carrying guns. It is impossible not to have exemptions if one wants to be fair to the public, and once there are exemptions, there is no question but that the activity will continue. Regulation can be achieved, but we see in Scotland that the most intensive effort to ban hunting with dogs simply failed.
	The amazing comments by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) included a description of the clothing of people who hunt, which has nothing to do with the moral issues here. The hon. Gentleman also made the point that he is happy to allow individuals to hunt on horseback with dogs as long as they do not kill any animals. Let us be clear: dogs are genetically programmed to kill animals from time to time, so even the hon. Gentleman must accept that there must be exemptions.
	The middle way group is is concerned about the over-strict definition of utility. We think that recreational activity should be included because that seemed to be a point of consensus in the three-day hearing in September. If the concept of utility is too limited, an inconsistency is introduced, which must mean that shooters, fishers and anglers will be concerned about the potential extension of the ban to their activities. I make no bones about it: if I were a member of an animal welfare organisation and I achieved a ban on hunting with dogs, I would naturally try to go further. There will be a momentum in those organisations to try to achieve more.
	Rats and rabbits are exempted, but should not there be provision for mice, voles, shrews and squirrels? Dogs do not distinguish between hares and rabbits, so we may make criminals of people who go out with good intentions of killing rats and rabbits but end up killing mice or voles. We need to consider exemptions in Committee.
	There is very little scientific evidence to show that killing a fox with dogs is better or worse than using another method. The middle way group will seek to initiate research in the months ahead which may be useful in Committee. We are also concerned about what may be an arbitrary distinction between the forms of hunting that will be allowed and stag hunting and hare coursing. Why not allow those questions to be determined by the registrar according to the same criteria?
	The Bill provides a serious opportunity for us to have a rational debate, leading to a sensible and sustainable outcome, but only if we have an informed debate. It is not good enough to sit here for two hours, make a speech and walk out. If Members are serious about the matter, they will study the findings of the Burns inquiry and the three-day hearing, which was a seminal achievement by the Minister in obtaining information on the matter, and, in a cool, collective and, so far as possible, non-tribal manner, come to a lasting solution. If we achieve that, we will be a credit to a democratic institution; if we do not, it will be to our shame that we sought to regulate on the basis of emotion rather than on the basis of the facts, which are there for all to read.

Eric Martlew: Tonight we have seen the anger of the Tory grandees and the violence out in Parliament square, and the reason is obviousthey know that the game is up. The Bill will be passed. We have a commitment from the Minister, with which I am sure the Prime Minister agrees, that there will be a free vote for Labour Members and Ministers. We also have a commitment from the Government that if the Bill is thrown out by the other place, we will use the Parliament Act. That is why there is real anger among the Opposition, in the House and on the streets outside. Tonight is the beginning of the end for hunting as we have known it in this country.
	My right hon. Friend is a very clever Minister. He has worked hard for many hours, consulted everybody and introduced a Bill that hardly anybody agrees with, but nobody blames him. That is the art of being a great politician. I welcome the Bill because it does two things: it bans hare coursing and it bans stag hunting, and I have for a long time been part of attempts to get those measures passed. The Bill will be much better when we have amended it, and I am sure that it will be amended so that it bans much more hunting.
	I want to concentrate on upland hunting. I know what the Burns report said about upland hunting, which in my area is run by the fell packs. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) mentioned John Peel, who, like me, was a Cumbrian. John Peel is part of our history; he is not part of our future. There can be no difference between fell packs and mounted packs, whether in Cumbria or Leicestershire. If an activity is cruel, it is cruel, and I find it difficult to believe that there is utility in it.
	If we consider the fell packsthe Ullswater, the Melbreak and the Blencathra are those nearest mewe find that they use artificial earths. They dig a hole and put in a pipe so that the foxes will be nice and warm and able to breed. The local hunt's code of practice says that foxhunting is a sport.

Anne McIntosh: I have been out with the Blencathra hunt. Has the hon. Gentleman? If so, is he aware that one reason it goes to such lengths is to ensure a balance in the countryside for future generations of foxes? My problem with the Bill is that it would lead to the eradication of all foxes, which is not what the Opposition want.

Eric Martlew: When the Blencathra gets back home to Cumbria, it says that hunting is necessary for pest control; the hon. Lady says that it is not necessary for pest control and that the hunt needs extra foxes for its sport. I do not think that it will be pleased with the hon. Lady's intervention.
	There is no doubt that in the Lake district, hunts use artificial earths. Not only that, but it is recorded that they put sheep carcases inside to make sure that the foxes have enough to eat. The idea that hunting is pest control is wrong. I hope that the Minister is aware of that. I am sure that he is taking notes.
	Hunting also causes problems of disturbance, disruption and trespassing in the Lake district, as it does everywhere else. It can be argued that because the roads are busy in the Lake district the hounds are in greater danger there than in many other parts of the country. There are other dangers in the fells. There are many records of hounds being killed by falling off a crag. In the 1990s, the Ullswater mountain rescue team was called out to rescue hounds that were fell-bound.
	A hunt follower of 30 years' experience came to see me. He was not in favour of banning hunting, but he said that hounds were cruelly treated. He told me of a hound with a broken leg which was made to go out on the chase and of hounds that were kept half-starved so that they would run better. He also said that a hound's life is brutal and short because when it is too old to follow the hunt, it is not retired; it gets a bullet in the back of the head.

David Taylor: Is it not also the case that apart from shooting hounds that are too old, hunts shoot at an early age hounds that do not show a great inclination to hunt?

Eric Martlew: That is the case, and it is another reason for cub hunting. It not only trains hounds to kill foxes; it allows the hunt to find out which hounds do not have the killing instinct. Young hounds without that instinct are destroyedthere is no argument about that.

Bob Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously arguing that shooting or poisoning foxesmany of them suffer a lingering, evil death for many hours if not daysis better than dispatching them with hounds which, by instinct, must kill the fox quickly so that it does not nip them?

Eric Martlew: I was arguing strongly that it was bad not only for the foxes but for the hounds as well.
	I believe that there is a need for fox control by lamping on the high ground of the Lake district. The idea that we can control foxes with hounds is rubbish. A BBC video called XCumbrian Tales featured a local landowner who was a member of the mounted hunt and a local shepherd who supported foxhunting. When the shepherd had a problem with a fox, he did not tell the local hunt, but got a couple of his mates to flush out the fox and shoot it. I asked a shepherd friend of mine what he does if he has a problem with foxes. He told me, XI get the men with the lamps.
	Some will argue that we cannot have people with guns on the fells, as there are too many tourists. However, lamping happens at night in remote areas, and there has never been an accident or incident with anybody lamping or killing foxesto argue otherwise is to argue from a false premise. Finally, I welcome the opportunity to vote for the Bill. However, it is nonsense to ban foxhunting in Leicestershire but leave it in Cumbria.

Edward Garnier: I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that it would be nonsense to ban fox hunting in Leicestershire. Apart from that, however, I fear that we disagree.
	I have attended or participated in every debate on hunting since I was elected to the House in April 1992. Each of those debates has been fuelled by a mixture of personal experience, knowledge, prejudice, ignorance, enthusiasm and an unwillingness to appreciate the other side's argument. Every hon. Member has come to this and previous debates with a firm and fixed opinion. He or she has left the Chamber and gone into the Lobby with that opinion unchanged by any of the arguments deployed during the course of debate. Tonight will be no exceptionthe issue that we are addressing will leave us as divided tonight as it has in the past.
	That does not give me great confidence in the Chamber's ability to reach a rational and sensible conclusion on what to do about hunting, not least because I am as guilty as every other Member hereI passionately support the continuance of hunting in Leicestershire and Cumberland and passionately reject the arguments of all hon. Members who have spoken against its continuance. If I feel sorry for anybody, however, it is for the Minister. When the options Bill was in Committee during the last Parliament, he spoke with considerable force in favour of a total ban on hunting, but he has now been forced to come to the Chamber to represent the Government and make an argument in which he clearly does not believe. That is one of the professional problems that goes with being a Ministersometimes Ministers have to advance Government policy contrary to their personal opinion. The Minister has done so, and no doubt he will now tell me why.

Alun Michael: I have introduced a Bill based on the principles that I believe are right after looking at all the arguments and available evidence. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept that from me.

Edward Garnier: If that is what the right hon. Gentleman says, of course I believe himhe is an hon. Member of the House. However, it is interesting that the views that he expressed in Committee on the last occasion are poles apart from the views that he purports to express on this occasion, but let us leave it there.

Lembit �pik: As was said in an intervention during my speech, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that some of us have changed our views, as the Minister also suggested? I happily admit to having done so, not least because of the three-day hearing that delivered more consensus than those who did not attend it may accept. In addition, the public themselves have changeda majority supporting a ban has been replaced by a majority not supporting a ban, so there has been movement.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman's opinion may have changed since he became an adult and served on Newcastle city council, but I do not believe that his opinion has been changed by any of the debates in the House since he became a Member. However, I have made my point, and people may consider it.
	I shall comment briefly on the Bill, and shall do so in headlines because we have only a short time available and plenty of other Members wish to contribute to our debate. It is intellectually confused, and is a muddle that has been exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and other hon. Members who have spoken on both sides of the argument. For the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and perhaps for Walsall, North (David Winnick) the Bill is not consistent. They and many Conservative Members believe that cruelty cannot be licensed in one place and banned in anotherthat is what the Bill attempts to do. Furthermore, it makes an improper distinction between the welfare of rabbits, rats and deer; it takes another view of foxes and, most incomprehensibly of all, seems to permit falconry.
	The Bill's muddled status is also demonstrated by the Minister's inabilityhe faced this problem on 3 December when he made his statementto explain what he had learned from the three-day hearing that he could not have learned from the Burns inquiry. The evidence presented by Burns is no different in essence from the evidence given in the Portcullis House hearings, yet the Minister proclaims those hearings as a new advance.
	The Bill is economically illiterate. Banning hunting in my county will have a serious and immediate financial and economic effect. Although the figures are pooh-poohed by those who disagree with me, there will be a 100 per cent. hit for people who will lose their jobs and individuals whose businesses and livelihoods will be damaged. I have heard the arguments about what the Conservatives did when we faced the coal-mining problem, but if two wrongs can be said to have existed, they do not make a right. That argument is of no assistance to people in my constituency, the county of Leicestershire and elsewhere who are to lose their jobs. Furthermore, the registration and tribunal system introduced by the Bill is uncosted, and I am surprised that the Minister did not think it appropriate to tell us how much that great bureaucratic system will cost.
	The Bill is politically inept, as is amply demonstrated by arguments deployed tonight. It is a Bill that pleases nobody and annoys everybody. That may be a wonderful trick to pull off, but it does not go down well with my constituents or Members on both sides of the argument. To return to a point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George)I urge people who did not hear his speech to read it tomorrowthe Bill will be socially divisive. It is also morally unjustifiableI merely refer hon. Members to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Indeed, some of their remarks were underlined by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). There is no moral justification for the Government's position or that of people who are introducing the Bill on their behalf that I have been able to appreciate or understand. Nor do I believe that the arguments for the Bill are coherent or cogent.
	Finally, the Bill is legally unacceptable. Extraordinarily, its superstructure rests on two highly subjective tests that are to be adjudicated by a registrar and, if necessary, on appeal to tribunalthey may be presented with different evidence of fact and opinion to justify arguments which, if applied to another part of the county or country, may not be successful. The fact that the burden of proof rests upon those who wish to continue hunting seems to me inimical to natural justice. It is of some interest that the Bill is silent about the standard of proof to which the applicants will have to conform.
	The tests set out in clause 8 are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury pointed out, so vague as to be almost indefinable in anticipation. How can any person who wishes to practise hunting, anyone who wishes to represent those who wish to appear in front of the registrarI understand that there will be a number of registrarsor any member of an appeal tribunal come to a considered view about expressions such as Xsignificant contribution, Xserious damage, Xa contribution equivalent to or Xsignificantly less pain, and do so on a consistent basis right across the country?

Hugo Swire: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Edward Garnier: I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I see that I have 48 seconds left.
	I must also express concern about the fact that, unfairly, animal welfare groups, whose identity has yet to be specified, are to be provided with Government finance, whereas those who wish to apply to hunt are to be given no Government financial assistance at all.
	There is so much wrong with the Bill that to give it a Second Reading would be an abuse, and to prevent it from having a Second Reading would be to do it a kindness. I trust that those who are persuaded to give it a Second Reading and permit it to go to Committee will listen carefully to the arguments deployed in Committee and not allow the Bill to be a disguised ban Bill, when that is not what the public want or require.

Mark Tami: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, which I hope will finally bring a conclusion to the matter, although perhaps not the conclusion envisaged in the current wording of the Bill.
	When previous Governments have legislated to ban cruel and barbaric sports, if one can call them sports, such as foxhunting, bear baiting and badger digging, they have done so on a moral basis. The strength of public opinion opposed to such bloodthirsty activities has promoted bans to stop them, so society has long accepted the principle of banning activities that are cruel to animals. A Bill to ban bull baiting was passed by Parliament some 200 years ago, and bans on bear baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting have followed since. When these issues were discussed in Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) made clear, many of the arguments that we hear today in support of hunting with dogs were made at that time, but to my knowledge there has never been a suggestion that those activities should be licensed.

Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend note that, contrary to the statements made twice by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), there is support for a ban on hunting, as evidenced in appendix 1 to the research paper in the House of Commons Library?

Mark Tami: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There was a Sky poll today which showed that nearly two thirds of people are against foxhunting. That figure is consistently thrown up by surveys. I do not know where the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) gets his figures, but they are somewhat different from the facts.
	As I said, other so-called sports were banned because people found such activities abhorrent. Most people view hunting with dogs with the same abhorrence. In England and Wales, hunting with dogs is the only activity where animal is set upon animal for so-called sport, and has not yet been outlawed. The idea that there is some middle way whereby animal cruelty can be licensed is nonsense.

Hugo Swire: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify one point. He said that England and Wales were the only two places where animal was set upon animal. He represents a Scottish seat. In some circumstances, that happens in Scotland, does it not?

Mark Tami: Unfortunately, I do not represent a Scottish seat. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but perhaps he should get his facts right to begin with.
	We cannot justify compromising the welfare of foxes or any other animal just because a small minority of people enjoy hounding them to their deaths.

Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Tami: I will not. I have given way twice, and we are eating into other hon. Members' time for speaking.
	If there is a proven need for an individual animal to be controlled, that should be done swiftly and humanely. If it can be shown that an activity is cruel and unnecessary, and that there is a more practical and humane alternative, the only justifiable outcome is that that activity should be banned. I can understand those who argue that hunting is not cruelnot that I agree with them or accept their contentionmore than those who say that hunting is cruel, but it is okay to license it.
	The test that the Government propose in relation to hunting with dogs is based on utility and cruelty. As a result of that test, the Government rightly propose to ban hare coursing and deer hunting outrighthon. Members clearly welcome thatbut to introduce a licensing system for foxhunting, which the majority of hon. Members probably do not welcome.
	The concept of utility is open to broad interpretation, but I believe there are two aspects of it: the extent to which it is necessary to kill certain animals, and when that is the case, the most appropriate method of carrying out that task. Whether or not an individual animal is designated a pest has no bearing on whether it should experience pain or suffering. Any pest control method should pass three tests: it should be necessary, effective and humane.
	Is it even necessary to control foxes? The Burns inquiry found that there was a general perception among farmers, landowners and gamekeepers that that was indeed the case. Individual foxes can undeniably cause local difficulties, but there is little evidence to support the view that the fox is a significant agricultural pest nationally. The Burns Committee stated:
	XIt is clear that only a small proportion of foxes kill lambs; otherwise lamb losses would be much higher.
	In addition, a study published in September showed that the number of attacks by foxes on lambs and other livestock is low, and that in some circumstances such attacks can be controlled by better husbandry and fencing.
	The next test is whether fox hunting with dogs is effective. Research has shown that fox populations are resistant to culling. As regards the effectiveness of foxhunting, the Burns inquiry concluded that
	Xthe overall contribution of traditional fox hunting, within the overall total of control techniques involving dogs, is almost certainly insignificant in terms of the management of the fox population as a whole.
	Research published in September in the science journal Nature found that a ban on hunting would not have a dramatic impact on fox numbers. Even the Countryside Alliance used to claim that hunting was effective in controlling only 5 per cent. of the fox population, but seems to have dropped that argument now as it contradicts its case that hunting is an effective means of controlling fox numbers.
	The final test is whether foxhunting with dogs is humane. The Burns committee concluded that hunting with dogs
	Xseriously compromises the welfare of the fox.
	If that is not an understatement, God knows what is. The results of the four post-mortems commissioned by the Burns committee on foxes hunted above and below ground showed that all had suffered multiple injuries caused by dogs before being killed. In summary, it is clear that there are no circumstances in which the continuation of traditional foxhunting with dogs can be justified.
	The introduction of a licensing system would send out a message saying that foxhunting is less cruel than hare coursing or deer hunting with dogs, but that argument cannot be sustained by any of the available evidence. Licence or no licence, foxhunting is cruel, barbaric, unnecessary and very ineffective. I for one would find it extremely difficult to go back to my constituency and say that I had voted for legalised cruelty, and I will not do it. We need a total ban and we need it now.

Simon Thomas: Since coming to the House, I have consistently opposed any attempt to ban hunting. I have done so on two premises. First, hunting, certainly as it is practised in my constituency, goes with the grain of country practice and of maintaining a sustainable, lively and viable countryside. Secondly, I have not seen any evidence to date to suggest that hunting with hounds is any more cruel than any other method of disposing of foxes.
	One of the key issues that we must understand in this debate is that those on every side of the argument have agreed to a greater or lesser extent that we must control fox numbers. The variation relates to where those numbers need to be controlled. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) spoke about individual foxes as if they could be taken to a cashpoint and fined for antisocial behaviour because they had attacked a lamb in certain circumstances or whatever else. He must understand the wider context. He spoke about better husbandry and fencing, but fences cannot be erected along miles of open countryside. Indeed, his Government want to turn that countryside into a right-to-roam area. Surely, they do not want it to be electrified as part of stock husbandry.
	We need to work with the grain of sustainable and forward-thinking country practices and to try to support farmers in maintaining a biodiverse countryside while recognising that the fox is the top predator there, so it is down to us as human beingsafter all, we created the situationto try to do the best that we can for the whole biodiverse countryside with the minimum of cruelty to foxes and other species.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the right to roam. How can that right be reconciled with lamping, which requires the use of rifles in the dark on open land to which legislation gives a public right of access?

Simon Thomas: I recognise the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I believe that lamping has a future in controlling fox populations. We will have to address that issue in dealing with the Bill.
	I accept that there is a large body of public opinion outside the Houseit varies and can represent a majority or a slight minority, but it is always at about 40 per cent.saying that foxhunting should be banned, as well as hare coursing and stag hunting by association. As legislators, we cannot ignore that. There may be inconsistencies in the arguments. Indeed, the opinions advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) have great validity in philosophical terms. The fox is sometimes seen as much more worthy of protection than other species simply because it is furry. None the less, as legislators, we cannot ignore what people are telling us, so it is important that we bring some conclusion to the process.
	That is why I think that the Minister has worked hard on the Bill and give him credit for having undertaken the three-day hearings, listened to hon. Members and tried to introduce a Bill that can work in practice. The one thing that I recognise in the Bill is that it has underpinning principles. This is the first time that we have debated a Bill on hunting that is based on principles, rather than prejudices. The principles go wrong in some of the workings. On stag hunting, for example, a fair question has been raised as to whether we should prejudge its banning and whether it would be better to apply the principles in individual cases, as it may be possible to convince an independent authority or even animal welfare groups that a stag hunt is better in the wider context in some circumstances.
	The two clear underlying principles are cruelty and utility. Cruelty to animals is defined and established in law, and I do not see a problem in making the Bill work in that context. Utility is a bit more difficult. The Bill demands that those of us who support a more integrated, holistic and traditional way of maintaining the countryside show how hunting with hounds, whether of foxes, stags or whatever, works for the greater good. It requires us to show that the individual evil of killing a fox in a particular way is offset by the greater good or utility of maintaining the countryside. The Burns report said that it was not clear in upland regions in Wales, Cumbria and other areas whether killing the fox by hunting with hounds was necessarily more cruel than doing so by any other method, and that that was a moot point. We must bring together the two principles to which I have referred and make them work in practice.
	Let me tell a story relating to my constituency. This did much to persuade me that the Bill is the only realistic way of proceeding, although it would have to be amended in Committee to accord with my expectations.
	In 2001, during the foot-and-mouth outbreak, hunting with hounds was of course banned throughout my constituency, although we did not suffer from foot and mouth as such. The constituency contains a site of special scientific interest called Cors Fochno in one of the low-lying bog areas north of Aberystwyth and along the Dyfi estuary. Under the European habitats directive, it is now a special area of conservation as well as an SSI. I told the Minister that when he was kind enough to meet me in the summer.
	When foxhunting was banned in that area, the Countryside Council for Wales decided to control the fox population in the bog in a different way. It called in shooters and tried to introduce lamping, for instance. The move was a complete failure, resulting in enormous predation of ground-nesting birds by an over-expanding fox population.
	The whole area is a bird nature reserve, abutting the RSPB, called Ynyshir. If its carefully established ecosystem was to be maintainedit being both an SSSI and a home for waders and visiting winter birdsthe fox population had to be controlled. As soon as it was physically possible, the hunt was invited back in. It was the only sustainable option. I would expect the Bill to give the go-ahead to such measures, and I would like Labour Members in particular to apply them to their own circumstances.
	By now, surely, we should have moved away from circumstances in which any form of foxhunting is seen as an issue on which to raise the class standard. There are more important issues on which to raise it. I agree with some of the criticisms of Conservative policy, but I think thatnot just in Wales, but in many parts of Englandprinciples relating to cruelty and utility can be made to apply at grass-roots level, and in a way that supports a more sustainable countryside. I want that to happen in co-operation with people on the ground, which means not penalising them or making criminals of them but asking them to join us in trying to accommodate the significant number of people who want foxhunting to be banned. I believe that a complete ban would be an ecological disaster in many parts of both England and Wales.
	Many people are now isolated from the countryside. They immediately perceive country practices as cruel, because they involve killing and because they involve control. Most people, having visited an abattoir, would be turned off the meat industry, yet, thankfully, most people continue to support the industry by purchasing meat, and there is no reason to suppose that they will turn away from it.
	We must bridge the gap. The Minister has tried to do that, and at this stage I support him. I want to see whether he can make the Bill work in favour of the reality of the countryside rather than the prejudices that we have heard tonight.

Gerry Steinberg: I have opposed foxhunting on cruelty grounds for the last 20 years, and I have not changed my mind. It was cruel 20 years ago, and it is cruel today. I will vote for Second Reading, but only because the Bill can be amended in Committee.
	I despair when I consider the situation in which the Government have landed us because they did not have the guts to ban hunting when we were elected five years ago, and now have not the guts to introduce a Bill to ban hunting with dogs outright. I am very disappointed with the Bill, and with the way in which the Government have handled things since 1997. During the last five years they have lost a huge amount of reputation and trust over this issueespecially among members of the Labour party, and particularly among people who voted Labour on two occasions because banning hunting was a manifesto commitmentwhich has been very damaging.

Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not look a gift fox in the mouth? If we succeed in banning hunting through the Bill, hon. Members who have been disappointed will forgive us.

Gerry Steinberg: I am not sure whether we shall be forgiven, but my hon. Friend is right that the Bill is the only way in which we can ban foxhunting. I shall therefore vote for it tonight.
	There has been an inexcusable delay in resolving the issue, and more than 100 hours of parliamentary time have been spent in wasted, repetitive debate, when the arguments were clearly won by hon. Members who wanted to ban hunting. More important, thousands of animals have continued to suffer and die unnecessarily in the past six years. That includes the hounds and other dogs that are used in fox, deer, hare and mink hunting.
	The Burns inquiry and the public hearing have demonstrated that hunting with hounds causes immense suffering to wild animals. They are chased to exhaustion, brutally savaged by the pack of hounds or forced to fight underground with terriers. However, what about the tools of all that cruelty, the hounds and the terriers?
	The foxhound has a short and harsh life. Puppies that do not show aptitude for hunting or fail to meet the requirements are normally shot by the kennel man. Those that are fortunate enough to make the grade are trained to chase and kill foxes during the cub-hunting season. That unpleasant side of hunting involves chasing and killing fox cubs to teach young hounds how to kill. One does not often hear hunters discussing the merits of cub hunting; they prefer to keep quiet about it.
	Hounds will follow wherever the scent of their quarry takes them. That makes the route for hunting live quarry unpredictable and much more exciting for the mounted field. The price of that Xfun is that many hounds are run over on roads or even hit by speeding trains after straying on to railway lines. Others become injured on barbed wire fencing or get lost from the pack for days.
	There are numerous reports of hounds being electrocuted and killed. In one case, the New Forest Foxhounds trespassed on a railway line, resulting in the death of six hounds. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to hear such information because they enjoy seeing the killing and the cruelty to animals. They will vote for that this evening. Passengers on a train from London to Bournemouth witnessed the train running over the bodies of the hounds.
	If the hounds survive all that, we would expect them, like most working dogs, to be retired to live a comfortable life in the country. Sadly, we would be wrong. When the hounds reach the age of approximately six or sevenhalf their normal life expectancythey are simply shot. They are taken around the back of the kennels, where a bullet is put in the back of their heads. That makes a mockery of the hunts' claims that, in the event of a ban on hunting with dogs, they will have no alternative but to shoot their hounds; they shoot them anyway. It is estimated that hunts around the country kill between 3,000 and 5,000 hounds every year.
	I support the RSPCA's view that a mass slaughter of hounds in the event of a ban would be irresponsible and unnecessary. I am pleased that the RSPCA has pledged to do all it can to prevent such needless destruction at the hands of the hunts. The Burns inquiry into hunting with dogs found that
	Xany need to put down hounds or horses, in the event of a ban, could be minimised if there was a suitable lead-in time before it was implemented.
	The previous Government hunting measure, which fell in March 2001, contained such a lead-in period. The RSPCA believes that responsible hunts should start to wind down their breeding programmes immediately to reduce the number left in the case of a ban. I call on responsible hunts to start to wind down their breeding programmes now.
	I am sure that the Bill will be amended to reflect the will of the public and Parliament. I hope that there is no pressure on the payroll vote, although it is normally applied in the case of a Government Bill. If, through such pressure, the measure is passed in its current form, hunts will be left with uncertainty that may cause further suffering to hounds. It may take years for some licence applications to be resolved. In the meantime, hunts would be left with packs of redundant hounds, with no subscriptions to cover the cost of their care.
	If foxhunting, hare coursing and deer hunting were banned outright through the Bill, at least hunts would have time to consider three options properly. First, they could disband and give their hounds a different home. Secondly, they could disband the hunt but keep the hounds. Thirdly, they could convert to drag hunting. I believe that a switch to drag hunting would be the preferable option, as it would allow members of the hunt to continue to enjoy the sport, the pageantry that they like, and the social side of hunting, while allowing the hounds to continue to be kept in packs.
	The cruelty that these so-called sports inflict on dogs and wildlife is totally unjustifiable. The only way to prevent it is to introduce a ban on these barbaric and bloodthirsty forms of hunting with dogs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has called the Bill a fudge, and I absolutely agree with him. As we have seen this evening, it causes confusion and uncertainty, and creates the possibility that the cruelty of foxhunting could continue. I must ask the Minister why it stops short of a complete ban. In reality, he has chosen a Bill that appeases absolutely no one. It does not appease the Countryside Alliance, the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals, or the public, and it certainly has not appeased Members of Parliament. I can only imagine that it has been devised in an attempt to appease both sides in this long-running debate. Perhaps the Government were frightened by the pro-hunting lobby's ability to get large numbers of people to take to the streets by wrapping the issue up in a number of genuine rural concerns.

Alun Michael: While I accept my hon. Friend's views on the Bill, I would ask him to accept that the way in which the process has been undertaken and the way in which the Bill has been drafted have been based entirely on trying to get the right principles into place and to deal with the issue so as to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on it. I ask him at least to accept the integrity with which I have attempted to bring the Bill before Parliament.

Gerry Steinberg: I certainly accept that; I am not questioning the Minister's integrity at all. I think that he has been misguided in bringing us a Bill that appeases nobody, but I would certainly not accuse him of doing anything that was not proper.
	Having said that, however, I would say to the Minister that if the Bill was introduced to appease the Countryside Alliance, whose actions we have seen outside the House today, let us consider the reasons that its members took to the streets for a so-called liberty and livelihood march. In my view, that march had nothing to do with foxhunting at all. Only 47 per cent. of the marchers lived in the middle of the countryside. A quarter of them lived in towns, and 52 per cent. were affluent people from social categories A and B. Eighty-two per cent. of the marchers voted Conservative. The Countryside Alliance march was a political rally. It was an anti-Government march, not a pro-countryside march. Recent military-style action and the threat of civil disobedience and law breaking are indicative of a growing desperation among the pro-hunt lobby that simply goes to show that its members have lost the arguments on hunting. Attempts by a small minority to block the wishes of the majority of people in this country and cause significant disruption to commuters, businesses and families travelling away for the weekend show scant regard for the democratic process.
	I would have liked to go on speaking. I acknowledge the effort that the Minister has put into the Bill, but he could have saved himself a lot of time and a great deal of hard work by producing a Bill that reflected the will of the House. I suggest that he removes part 2 and allows the democratic process to stop this cruelty once and for all. It is time that the democratic will of Parliament and of the majority of people in this country was listened to, and time that hunting with hounds was finally abolished.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a great respect for the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), but I have to say that I think that that was the most prejudiced and ignorant speech I have heard in my 10 years as a Member of Parliament. The House is at its worst when we debate this subject. I have been involved in hunting all my life, and I have heard so much ignorance this evening that it is unbelievable.
	I feel sorry for the Minister. Whatever his personal views, he has approached the subject with integrity. The hearings that he conducted in Portcullis House were fair, and he relied on the evidence of the Burns inquiry. If we study the evidence fairly and objectively, however, it would be difficult to introduce this Bill. I hope that some of its deficiencies will be dealt with in Committee, because we all want to see hunting regulated and managed properly, if it is to continue, with the least cruelty attached to it. I would maintain that the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting, which few people know anything about, is extremely tough and should be used as the model for the Bill, but that is an argument for another day.
	One main weakness of the Bill is that it does not rely on proper scientific and objective evidence, as I said in an intervention on the Minister. I cannot understand why hare coursing and deer hunting have been specially ruled out with an automatic ban, especially in view of the objective evidence of Wise, Bateson and Harris, who
	Xconcluded that all of the changes observed are the normal psychological expression of arousal and exercise. All are reversible and none are of clinical significance to the hunted deer.
	It is probable that similar reversible processes would be found in hunted foxes, hares and mink. So, if one takes the expert scientific opinion, no incontrovertible evidence exists, as the Minister said this morning to a stag hunting delegation, to show that stag hunting is cruel. If we are to legislate, we should do so on proper objective, scientific principles.
	If paragraph 5.26 of the Burns report is to be believed, hunts cull 21,000 to 25,000 foxes each year; if the 2010 biodiversity regime is to be applied, farm animals are to be protected. Presumably, that same number of foxes will still need to be culled. How will they be culled? There are a number of alternatives. The first is using a high-powered rifle. That might be safe in vast areas of Wales, but it would not be safe at night in vast areas of the south of England due to people wandering on footpaths, the right to roam and so on. Even if it were safe, I can tell Members, as I have done it, that using a high-powered rifle and killing the fox with the first shot requires a degree of expertise.
	The second method that could be used is shooting foxes with a shotgun. I can tell Members that the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ran a trial, which found that 46 per cent. of foxes that are shot with a shotgun go away wounded. Anybody who knows anything about shooting foxes with a shotgun knows that when they go away wounded, they suffer a long, lingering death. Mostly they go to ground, unfound and unseen, but they live in their earth for a long time before they die, and very painful it is too.
	The third alternative is some form of running snare that is legal. Again, however, unless the running snare is inspected every day [Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would listen, because he might learn something from somebody who knows about the subject. One could use a running snare, which is perfectly legal, but the issue of cruelty would become immense if it were not inspected every day. Members should imagine being caught by the leg in a snare and desperately trying to get away.

Tony Banks: Those snares should be illegal.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If a fox is caught by the leg by a snare, it will bite its leg off to try to get away. That is how cruel running snares are.

Tony Banks: They should be banned.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would maintain that all the alternatives are crueller

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are far too many sedentary interventions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All the alternatives are crueller, but let us be under no illusionthe Bill will license cruelty.
	I refer to the business of the tribunals, which is unfair. Under the tribunal process, the opponents of the licence for an individual hunt will be allowed to appeal and re-appeal, yet the applicant for a licence may not reapply on the same grounds until at least six months have passed. I would maintain that that is unfair and disproportionate. Also, given the acknowledged absence of any scientific evidence, applicants for registration face an impossible task, as the burden of proof will be on them to show that they can pass the least-suffering test. To quote clause 8 in part 2, applicants will have to prove that an equivalent to the utility contribution
	Xcould not reasonably be expected to be made . . . in a manner likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted.
	As Lord Burns said, there is
	not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 533.]
	In other words, it is impossible to pass the test to get a licence. The Bill will certainly mean that a significant number of hunts will not continueotherwise, what is the point of it?
	Along with many of my colleagues, I took part in the March for liberty and livelihood, as did 407,000 other people: honest, law-abiding citizens, the bedrock of this country. The Bill will impose all sorts of sanctions on them, including forfeiture of vehicles and animals. How on earth is a police constable at the scene of a suspected breach to compel a person to give up his animals? We are introducing powers to search property, and criminal sanctions on people who breach the provisions: ordinary, honest, law-abiding citizens such as many of my constituents. I represent more hunts, I suspect, than any other Member of Parliament: 10 at the last count. Large numbers of people will be subject to fines and possibly criminal sanctions. Is that what we really want? Do we want to send people to jail? I wonder whether the House is really cognisant of what it is taking on. As Churchill said, we must not underestimate the power of minorities.
	I urge the House to think very carefully about how it legislates on this subject. This is a bad Bill, and one that the House will come to regret.

Nick Palmer: To clarify one point, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) accused me and others who oppose hunting of class envy. I do not know which class he believes himself to belong to, but I have no wish to join it.
	I welcome the Government's consistency and courage in delivering a conclusion to a debate that has been running for more than 100 years. I especially welcome the personal dedication of the Minister, who is informally becoming known as the Minister for heroic efforts. We look forward to his being asked to solve the fire dispute, abolish the common agricultural policy and disarm Saddam Hussein.
	The Bill is an honourable attempt to find a logical common ground, but both the riot outside this place earlier today and the blatant hostility of Conservative Members show that most hunt supporters are not interested. It has been informally suggested that, unlike a total ban, the Bill has a chance of getting through the other place, so that we could complete the business this year. God loves optimists, but after what we have seen today that appears very unlikely.
	I accept and welcome the Bill's basic philosophy. It is right and logical to consider utility and cruelty in each case. I will support the Bill tonight. There are two central problems, however. The first is that there is nothing to stop thousands of people clogging up the machinery with individual applications. Applications are not limited to existing hunts, so every individual member of a hunt could propose to set up a new one. I see no logical end point to the process. Six months after an application is rejected, the individual will be back to apply again.
	The second problem is that the Bill, as it stands, delegates the decision on the utility or cruelty of the hunting of foxes, hare and mink to a tribunal. The Minister has made great efforts to ensure that the tribunal is fair and representative. As many of us have speculated and as Opposition Members have suggested, it may well be that the tribunals will find that the majority of hunts do not satisfy the criteria; however, we do not know. A glance at legal processes in Britain over the years shows that one cannot sensibly and firmly predict how tribunals and courts will behave. In practice, we are taking a gamble if we take this option.
	What do the public expect? I believe that theyby which I mean a majorityexpect Parliament to reach a conclusion on this matter, and they will be surprised if the one that we reach is that we should delegate the decision to a tribunal. Most people simply do not want us to do that. They want us to come to a view, and as has been said, about 50 per cent. want us to conclude that hunting with hounds should be banned.

Lembit �pik: If we accept that the outcome that we want is an improvement in animal welfare, and that in some circumstancesas the Minister has suggested and the hearings have provedkilling a fox with dogs is not necessarily the most cruel approach, it surely makes sense in the interests of animal welfare to allow a registrar to look at the specific circumstances and to judge whether a particular hunt application is justifiable within the very terms that the hon. Gentleman is discussing.

Nick Palmer: I understand the consistent position that the hon. Gentleman has taken for some years now, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) that the primary determinant of fox numbers is the availability of food. Although there are regional variations, nationally the number of foxes that die due to hunting is just over 5 per cent. That means that hunting's contribution to the control of fox numbers is actually insignificant. We spend a great deal of time debating whether alternatives are less cruel or more cruel, but the reality is that replacing hunting in most areas with nothing will make no more of a difference to fox numbers than did the absence of hunting during last year's foot and mouth outbreak.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman's point is that the major constraint on fox numbers is the amount of food available, but what sort of pain and cruelty do foxes experience if they die from lack of food?

Nick Palmer: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, except that it is well established that animals breed in greater numbers if plentiful food is available. We could discuss that issue at greater length than the time available to me allows; indeed, perhaps we could do so outside the Lobby.
	Most Members, as well as most of our supporters, will want the House to decide on these matters. Ultimately, the question of whether to allow foxhunting, mink hunting or hare hunting is a very simple one. Given that only 5 per cent. of foxes are killed by hunts, it is clear that the objective is primarily recreational. Do we want a sport that involves the suffering and death of animals to be regarded as legal and recreational? When confronted with that basic issue, the great majority of people say, XNo, I don't think that that should be legal.
	This is an issue for debate only because it is so familiar. Let us transpose it to a different environment. Let us consider the example of children chasing a stray dog across a council estate. Stray dogs are a pest and they need to be controlled. The children chase the dog across the estate and stone it to death; they are stopped, and people are horrified. What is the difference? It is only the existence of tradition and a long-standing habit. Our society is so rich that we do not need to depend on suffering and killing for our entertainment. I will vote for the Bill, regardless of the social composition of the group and the state of the opinion polls. I have said that for many years. In the last election, one of my Conservative opponents said that I put vermin before constituents. I quoted him in my election address, and I was returned with an increased majority.
	We should support the Bill with enthusiasm, and I urge all Members whose sympathies lie primarily with the hunted to join me in voting for the Bill tonight.

Gregory Barker: This Bill is duplicitous and malicious. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) ranted about it being an appeasement of the Countryside Alliance. He, at least, can rest assuredwherever he isthat this is a total ban in all but name. The Government have struggled to cobble together an intellectual or rational basis for imposing this unwarranted and draconian regulation on foxhunting, but have singularly failed to make a coherent or logical case. The Bill, as has been demonstrated this evening, is shot through with intellectual inconsistency.
	I have no doubt that for a minority of Members, a ban on foxhunting will be a logical extension of a principled, personal concern for animals, which no doubt includes vegetarianism and a determination to ban all forms of pest control. However, for the majority of Members who seek a ban, their motivation is fuelled by ignorance, prejudice and spite. As we prepare to launch a highly controversial war in the middle east that is so unpopular with the Labour Back Benches, is it not transparent that the Bill is a bit of red meat to be chucked to the troublemakers on the Back Benches in an effort to buy them off and appeal to the basest instincts of the Labour party?

Martin Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gregory Barker: I am afraid not.
	This measure has nothing to do with animal welfare. Deliberate cruelty to animals is, quite rightly, already a criminal act. The arbitrary application of the tests of cruelty and utility to foxhunting is illogical when it excludes rats, rabbits, birds and other animals, to say nothing of fish.
	The Bill requires no amendment to exterminate foxhunting as we know it across rural England. It is no more than a cunning device by the Government to ban the sport under the cloak of regulation. The effect on my constituents, who stand to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes and their community will be exactly the same as that of the most blatant ban. The Government have chosen to discard the Burns report, which was commissioned at great expense to allow impartial, educated scientific men and women to find out what many of us knew alreadythat hunting is no more cruel or inhumane than any other form of vermin control. What is more, according to Burns, not only would a ban have a catastrophic effect on thousands of rural families but thousands of hounds would have to be shot. The fox population would be left to be indiscriminately gassed, trapped or maimed. There is no Walt Disney solution to the problem of fox control.
	The likely consequence of a ban on hunting will be that farmers will take greater responsibility for controlling predators. Those predators will drag an unborn lamb from a ewe or slaughter every bird in a hen house and not take a single carcase. Faced with indiscriminate pest control carried out by farmers, many foxes will disappear completely from many parts of our countryside.
	It is not only foxes that will disappear from our landscape if hunting is banned. Those of us who care about the environment know that if a ban is forced through Parliament, the well-kept hedgerows, the coppices, the covers and the ditches that attend an active foxhunt also face extinction. No thought or consideration has been given in the Bill to the important contribution that foxhunting makes to the preservation of the biodiversity of the English countryside. It is no wonder that so many committed and well-respected environmentalists oppose a ban. It was no surprise to hear the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who is a particularly assiduous member of the Environmental Audit Committee, speak so powerfully in favour of foxhunting as a method of preserving the biodiversity of the British countryside.
	Coppicing, hedge-laying, dry-stone walling and woodland maintenance would all be hammered by a ban, or by a regulatory framework that squeezed the life out of the country sports industry. A ban on hunting in the present climate of low incomes for farmers would make it likely that, owing to the cost, necessary conservation work would disappear altogether.
	It has become more and more apparent that the debate is about neither cruelty nor care for the countryside. If Members were so concerned about cruelty, where is the vote in Government time to ban halal meat? Where is the vote in Government time to ban kosher meat? Where is the vote in Government time to ban the importing of meat from animals reared in obscene conditions that really warrant the description Xcruel? Where is the vote in Government time to reverse legislation that has closed slaughterhouses the length and breadth of Britain, thus requiring livestock to travel hundreds of miles on motorways rather than being dealt with humanely in their own locality?
	The debate has exposed some of the worst double standards in public life and I hope that Members will reflect on that the next time that they tuck into a factory-farmed roast. The debate has not shown a rational analysis of the facts: misplaced concern for animals may inform some voices in the argument, but it is self-evident that what drives most Members who are baying for a ban is old-fashioned spite, prejudice and bigotry. This profoundly illiberal Bill, which should concern everyone who holds dear civil liberties, sets a dangerously worrying precedent. It is liberty, not foxhunting, that is really at stake.
	Singling out rural communities in such a measure is akin to the Government's repealing race relations laws to allow the persecution of a single ethnic minority. Thankfully, that may not happen, but the effect on our small rural communities is exactly the same. It is no historical coincidence that the first European ban on hunting was enacted by Adolf Hitler. Despite the Minister's pretence at compromise, the Bill owes nothing to the third way but everything to the Third Reich.
	Down the ages, we in Britain have fought against the persecution of minorities. For hundreds of years, the defence of civil liberty has been cherished at Westminstersomething that may be a laughing matter for Labour Members. Although many people may not approve of hunting as a sport, or may question its relevance to a largely urban nation, millions of people recognise that to criminalise at a stroke a large section of rural Britain would be a monstrous misuse of the power of Parliament.
	The Prime Minister will have to build new jails if he sets his face against reason and tolerance. In my constituency, fine upstanding members of the community, who have never received so much as a parking ticket, are ready to go to prison for their beliefs.

Colin Challen: Is the hon. Gentleman inciting his constituents to break the law?

Gregory Barker: No, I am trying to explain the anger and disillusionment that they feel owing to the intolerance and arrogance that is being exhibited in this place. Is that really how Labour Members want to be remembered? Does the Prime Minister want to be remembered as the man who ripped apart the fabric of rural Britain and passed the most illiberal and divisive piece of legislation for 200 years?
	I ask every Member of the House to examine their conscience and to vote tonight not because they hate hunting, but because they love liberty.

Albert Owen: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on his hard work and patience and on the wide consultations that he held before introducing the Bill.
	My right hon. Friend knows my views on hunting, especially on hunting with dogs. He is also familiar with the terrain of my constituency so he knowsliterallywhere I am coming from.
	I agree that it is in everyone's interest that the issue of hunting with dogs should be brought to a conclusion. No one has benefited from the protracted debates without decision. Parliament and the House of Commons have certainly not benefited from the inability to take a decision on this matter. As a Member who represents a predominantly rural constituency, I can tell the House that it is the will of my constituents to bring this matter to a conclusion. Since my election in 2001, I have received a vast amount of correspondence on this subject, the overwhelming majority of which has come from people in rural areas who support my stand for a ban on hunting.
	Hunting is a sport. I have always recognised the need to flush foxes out to the gun where necessary. As the Burns report emphasises, that practice is widespread in Wales. Indeed, such a practice would have been permitted under the Deadline 2000 option that many of my hon. Friends supported. Although I support the principle of the Bill to outlaw the cruelty associated with hunting, I am unhappy with part 2, which deals with registration, as are many other hon. Members. Part 2 will be unworkable because, for example, it will be impossible for a tribunal to be certain whether the losses cited are accurate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), for whom I have enormous respect on this subject, that that will create a lottery for cruelty.

Martin Salter: Would my hon. Friend echo my concerns about the possible lack of impartiality of a tribunal that includes a vet and a land manager, especially as a notable vet in my constituency has put a sign on his surgery today that says, XAnyone who opposes hunting is no longer welcome at this veterinary practice? How impartial would that system be?

Albert Owen: I am concerned about the tribunal process for the very reason that there may be inconsistency across the country.
	Part 2 is unnecessary because, if there were a complete ban option and we allowed foxes to be flushed out to the gun, as in schedule 1, and stalking and flushing remained part of the Bill, there would be no need for any traditional hunt and this matter could be solved.
	The reason for the so-called traditional hunts is the enjoyment of the chase and the kill as pure sporting activity. Yes, a prolonged chase of a fox across open countryside is cruel; it is needless and avoidable. The very dogs used for that function prolong the chase so that those who partake can extend their pleasurethe thrill of the chase. That aspect of hunting has nothing to do with utility, but everything to do with entertainment and sport.
	Many pro-hunting sportsmen, some of whom reside in my constituency, have asked me whether I would take part in one of those hunts. XCome along, they say. Well, I have declined that offer. I am mindful of the last vote that we had on this subject. I voted in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), who is not in his place at the moment. I can assure hon. Members that that does not happen on many occasions, but I asked him whether he had always been against hunting. He responded, XNo, not until I accepted an invitation to go on a hunt. I believe that I would have found the experience exactly the same as he did and that it would have consolidated and reinforced my opposition to hunting.
	I have some experience of hunting. I, too, was born and raised in a rural constituency. As a young boy, I went shooting and rabbiting frequently. I like to think that I never performed too much cruelty because I was trained to do so, but I was young then and I also believed in Father Christmas. I have grown up and matured since then.
	I am very pleased that the Bill will not outlaw shooting, as that makes nonsense of the argument used by the pro-sport and pro-foxhunters that this is the thin end of the wedge. I am grateful to the Minister for reaffirming in his statement to the House on 3 December, as reported in column 757 of Hansard, our manifesto commitment that we have no intention of restricting angling or shooting. The provision to outlaw hare coursing shows that the Government intend to address the cruelty issue. The hare coursing event, as described in the Bill, is not unlike the traditional foxhunting event. It has little to do with liberty and everything to do with cruelty.
	I started by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on all his hard work in bringing this measure to Parliament and on providing the opportunity to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs. The Bill will assist in that process, but unless it outlaws foxhunting, with exemptions for flushing out, I am not confident that it will achieve its aim. I will support the Bill's Second Reading tonight, but I fear that I will not be able to support it at a later date unless it is amended accordingly.

Russell Brown: With regard to flushing out, does my hon. Friend agree that flushing out should involve no more than two dogs and two guns?

Albert Owen: Yes, I agree with that. That is the normal practice in the area that I represent.

Lembit �pik: I am surprised by the discovery that Santa Claus may not exist, and I am even more stunned by what the hon. Gentleman says about flushing out. Is he aware that a flushing out team needs to surround an entire wood? How does one do that with two dogs?

Albert Owen: That is not the case in every circumstance. In the terrain in my constituency, two dogs are used, the animal comes to the point of the gun, and it is shot cleanly.
	I was pleased to take that intervention from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), as I do not support the middle way; I believe in the right way forward. In terms of outlawing foxhunting as a sport, the Bill has a number of pitfalls. It has several good clauses, too, and, importantly, good intent. I accept that there is no such thing as perfect drafting. I am certain that the opportunity will present itself at a later stage to amend this Bill. Failure to do so will allow the muddled way to continue, satisfying nobody and wasting more important parliamentary time. Let us focus attention on rural depopulation, rural housing and rural regeneration, but let us deal with the unfinished business of hunting with dogs, too, and let us do it in a mature fashion. Let us legislate to end cruelty, to end hunting with dogs as a sport, and to restore the credibility of this House of Commons.

David Burnside: Before I briefly address the substance of today's debate, I wish to make an apology to the House. I included remarks about hunting and farming in my contribution to the debate on the Queen's Speech on 19 November. In the past, I have had a financial relationship with the Countryside Alliance through my company, David Burnside Associates Ltd. That relationship was included in the Register of Members' Interests when I came to the House, but it ceased in March 2002, so no such entry appears in the current register. I now understand that I should have declared that past relationship when I spoke on 19 November, as it appeared in the printed version of the register current at the time, and I apologise for not doing so.
	As I have not been able to take part in the main debate, I shall comment on one piece of work that I did for the Countryside Alliance when I was previously retained by the alliance as a consultant. I carried out research in 20 constituencies in England and Wales, and listed 20 subject matters of importance to those constituencies. Hunting was one of them, and it came 20thit was at the bottom of the list. We are insulting the countryside, the interests of the farming industry and all the problems that we face in the countryside by even having this debate tonight. I will oppose the Second Reading of the Bill because it does not reflect what the countryside really wants.

Russell Brown: I appreciate that time is moving on, but I first wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill and, as we have already heard, on the excellent work that he did in the three-day hearings. He has done his level best to deal with the issue, but I think that he would accept that, if he has had a rough ride at all today, he has had a rough ride from the Conservative Members who clearly do not accept anything that he has said. In fact, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said that we were doing nothing more than licensing cruelty. Although I hope that many Labour Members will go into the Lobby with my right hon. Friend, we expect amendments to be tabled in Committee. If he sees defeats staring him in the face, I hope that he will accept the will of the House of the Commons and accept such amendments.
	I want to mention briefly the effects of the hunting ban in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has been in being for just three years, but it has pushed through a Bill on hunting. Although I agree with those who have said that it is not an ideal Bill, it shows the Parliament's boldness to do something about the issue. It has not been caught up in what this House has been caught up in for a century. The Bill contained loopholes and those who want hunting to continue are determined and have gone to the extreme of almost breaking the law.
	The only hunt that has been disbanded in Scotland is in my constituencythe Dumfrieshire hunt. That happened only because the landowner was not prepared to let the hunt carry out its activities on his land. I sincerely hope that this Bill, as it goes through Committee, will place much more emphasis on the responsibilities of landowners and on what will happen if they are caught allowing something illegal to take place on their land.
	It has been claimed that hunting still continues in Scotland. Lothian and Borders police had to investigate a hunt that openly boasted about the killing of eight foxes by its hounds. We could expect flushing out to lead to the killing of one or two foxes, but the fact that as many as eight were killed shows that either illegal activity took place or that the pack of hounds was totally out of control.
	My Conservative opponent at the last general election has now become a rural rebel. He has boasted in the local press about having hunted on several occasions and, in more than one outburst, he has admitted that, whereas he previously hunted on his land, he now brings in guns to take out the foxes. In effect, he is openly admitting that he allowed foxes to breed on his land for nothing more than the sport of hunting. That takes us to the crux of the matter. The Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) introduced in 1997 was all about the argument that controlling fox numbers was the main reason for hunting. Controlling their numbers by hunting has been an unmitigated failure and it is now admitted in several places that hunting is all about sport and cruelty.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister's arguments about utility and cruelty are admirable. However, the Bill's proposals are a gamble that many Labour Members are not prepared to take. I again thank him for his efforts, but I hope that he will be prepared to accept amendments in Committee.

James Gray: Although I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), it is a parliamentary absurdity that I cannot go to Edinburgh to pontificate on foxhunting in Scotland, but he can come down here and squeeze out

Russell Brown: rose

James Gray: No, I will not give way.
	It is absurd that the hon. Gentleman can come down here and squeeze out Welsh and English Members of Parliament who have not been able to speak about foxhunting in their countries because they have had to listen to him. In particular, it is absurd because the regime introduced in Scotland is a shambles by any standard. It is nonsense to think that we would listen to anything that he has to say on hunting.
	The debate has been disappointing in many respects. As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) reminded us, something like 100 hours of parliamentary time have been spent on the subject in recent years. I have been involved in all of them, and here we all are again: the same old speeches, the same old faces and the same old argumentspretty tired old arguments they are, too. The fact is that hunting of all kinds is a minority and peripheral interest. Most people do not understand why we spend hours and hours of parliamentary time discussing it because it is not important to most people. However, it is of huge importance to the 407,000 decent country folk who came to London early this year. For each of them, 10 people who agreed with them stayed at home. It is also of huge importance for a small number of animal rights activists, on whose behalf most Labour Members speak, but for most of the 55 million people in England it is of peripheral interest.

Tony Banks: Is it true that the hon. Gentleman sponsored 1,000 people to come to the House to demonstrate and that he put them into Room W1 tonight? That is outrageous. Frankly, his mathematics must be appalling. Will he condemn, without reservation, the fact that some of those people whom he supports have thrown firecrackers at police horses outside the House?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have sponsored no one to come here today, but the fact so many people are so angry that they have come here should demonstrate to Labour Members how very important the issues are to people in the countryside.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will recollect that earlier today I brought to the attention of the Chair the fact that the Sessional Order on access to the House of Commons, which we passed on 13 November, was violated and that action needed to be taken. We now hear from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) that a Member of the House was involved in organising the demonstration that violated

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I dealt with the gist of that earlier this evening. We are taking time unnecessarily from the end of the debate.

James Gray: For the sake of good order, perhaps I can make it plain that I played no part whatsoever in organising the disturbance earlier today. I took no part in it. Of course, I would be the first to decry any illegal activity. That sort of thing should not take place around the Palace. However, the fact that tens of thousands of people are here this evening, making such a noise, shows how important the matter is to them.
	The arguments advanced by most Labour Members are the same tired old arguments. They were exploded by Lord Burns and in the three days of hearings in Portcullis House. They largely ignore the real evidence as inconvenient to their in-built prejudices. The truth is that almost every Labour Member ignored the Bill's content.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: No. I do not have much time.
	This is the first time that I remember every Labour Member, with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), speaking against the principle of a Government Bill on Second Reading. The purpose of a Second Reading debate is to agree with the principle of a Bill, but the Opposition and Labour Members do not. I hope that they have the power of their convictions and join us in the No Lobby.
	Like the hon. Member for West Ham, from whom we heard much, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen) concentrated entirely on what they believe to be unacceptable human behaviour. They do not like it. One hon. Member talked about funny coats. Others talked about people with horns. They talked about all kinds of funny behaviour and whether people enjoy hunting, but ignored what is central to the debatenamely, animal welfare. That, and not all those aspects of human behaviour, is what the Bill should be about. The National Farmers Union, which we must believe to have some knowledge of these matters, made its views plain in its briefing, when it said that the Bill
	Xin practice would prove to be a disservice to the cause of animal welfare.
	That is because the central question should be that of comparative cruelty.
	The Bill does not seek to define cruelty, so we do not know what cruelty is. We have only the concept of comparative cruelty. When the Minister winds up the debate, will he tell us which method of killing a fox is least cruel? Should one use hounds? Should one shoot it at night at a range of 300 yd, using a shotgun orthe Minister must be clear about thisa rifle, and watch it limp off to die of gangrene? That has been the experience in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Dumfries should know. Should one snare it, which is perfectly legal, or poison it or gas it, both of which are illegal? We need to know which of those practices are more, and which less, cruel, and the Bill must take steps to ensure that only the less cruel are allowed. Conservative Members would argue that a swift death after being hunted with hounds is the least cruel.
	The onus should be on the objectors to prove that the practice in question is more cruel than some others. Lord Burns, to name but one, certainly did not do so in the case of hunting. He went to great lengths to say that he did not believe that hunting with hounds was cruel, and the scientists giving evidence in Portcullis House did not say that it was cruel. Cruelty is subjective and comparative, and the Bill entirely fails adequately to define cruelty or utility.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out in a fine opening speech, the Minister's definition of utility has significantly changed since he wrote us a letter on 10 April. It has become much narrower and harder to achieve. I wonder why that should be. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why he has changed his definition.
	My suspicion is that utility, as defined in the Bill rather than in the letter of 10 April, will prove extremely difficult for most hunts to achieve. Labour Members may well welcome that, but the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) should be aware that if the test of utility is applied according to the strict definition in the Bill, coarse fishing will be outlawed and shooting will be called into question. Coarse fishing has no utility and must, because it involves hooking a fish by its mouth, involve cruelty. Most modern livestock practices would not pass the Minister's test of comparative cruelty and utility, and nor, as several hon. Members have said, would halal butchery, boxing, cigarette smoking and a variety of other activities. Why is the test applied only to hunting with hounds?

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that given the Bill's importance to the country people of Britain, it would be reasonable for the Cabinet Minister responsible to be here and to take part in the debate? Is not it unacceptable that the responsibility for both introducing and responding to the debate should be shovelled off on to somebody who has been given that role because no one else wants it? Why is not the Secretary of State here?

James Gray: My right hon. Friend is right[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs makes a dramatic appearance in the Chamber. She has missed the best bits, but at least she is here now to hear her Front-Bench colleague.
	My right hon. Friend makes a good point in that the Bill is being shuffled off into the background and given to a Minister of State to handle, presumably so that he can try to recover his political career, which was so damaged previously. The Secretary of State is a crafty enough politician to have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill; the reaction from her Back-Bench colleagues confirms what a sound decision that was.
	The definition of utility is extremely bad, and as the RSPCA has made plain on several occasions, most recently in an interview in The Daily Telegraph, it would seek to extend the ban to both fishing and shooting. If there is to be any usefulness at all in the Minister's golden thread of utility weighed against cruelty, it must be defined much more widely to include species management and habitat improvement, which were both included in April, and should also include economic livelihood, sport and recreation. Some believe that sport and recreation should not be included, but the Bill allows hounds to be used to preserve birds that are being bred for shooting, and the only reason to do so is for sport and recreation. The utility of sport and recreation is therefore recognised in one part of the Bill, and should also be recognised in the parts dealing with hunting with hounds. Comparative cruelty must also be defined much more carefully.
	Conservative Members wish to make it plain that we have no objection at all to the principle of licensing as long as it is a reasonable and liberal regime. After all, 40 hunts use the Ministry of Defence and Forestry Commission land and have been licensed by the Government at least since the last war. Every year, MOD Ministers sign a licence allowing foxhunting on MOD land. We in the hunting world do not like some aspects of those licences, but if vets and scientists oppose certain aspects of hunting, it would be perfectly reasonable to license those aspects to make the rest of it legal.
	The Bill does not begin to address that issue. There ought to be a presumption of innocent until proved guilty. The Government should set out in the Bill the way in which they want hunting of all kinds to be practised, and allow hunts conforming to that code of conduct to continue to hunt. The onus of proof should be on people seeking to end hunting, rather than on people seeking to preserve it. That applies particularly to stag hunting and coursingwhy should they be singled out for an outright ban? Why should the Minister's golden thread of balancing cruelty against utility not apply equally to them? If there is what the Minister described as incontrovertible evidence of the cruelty of deer hunting, he must tell us what it is. Why are rats and rabbits exempt? Surely, the golden thread should apply to them just as much as anything else. After all, how will hounds differentiate between rabbits and hares, the killing of which will be illegal? The only thing on which scientists on both sides of the argument agreed on in Portcullis House was that all mammals should be treated equally under the Bill. The Minister has not made such a provision, and has not listened to scientific advice. There is no justification whatsoever for outlawing coursing and stag hunting, and we shall seek to reverse that in Committee.
	The Bill fails to provide a liberal and practical licensing regime, and fails to limit cruelty. Indeed, those of us who know something about these issues, unlike many Government Members, know that it would increase cruelty because of the inherent cruelty of shooting. It fails to allow utility, and achieves the worst of all possible worlds. Like the Bills that went before it, it seeks to impose unjustifiable restrictions on individual freedom, trying to justify itself, but failing, in the name of animal welfare. It is a bad Bill, and we will oppose it on principle.

Andrew George: As the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members go on about individual freedom, may I ask who has the greatest civil liberty or individual freedomthe person born and brought up in the country, managing the countryside without hunting who is offended by hunting, or the person who arrives from town one day, buys up the land, and declares that he will get pleasure from hunting? Who has the pre-eminent freedomthe townie or the countryman?

James Gray: I always thought that the Liberal Democrat party was interested in individual freedom. Apparently, its Front-Bench Members are opposed to the Bill, but its Back-Bench Members are all in favour of it. The hon. Gentleman is all over the place, and we will not bother to respond to his rather silly point.
	This is a very bad Bill. In a free country, it is fundamentally wrong to criminalise innocent citizens for activities that harm no one. That is the important point, and perhaps it is the answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). Hunting may harm animals, but it harms no one. Parliament's first duty should be to defend the rights and legitimate interests of minorities. The Queen's Speech says that Ministers want to resolve the issue of hunting with dogs. I shall tell them how to resolve itleave it alone. Leave the people of countryside in peace, and respect their liberty and livelihood. Listen to them, and join me in voting against this unnecessary, illiberal and ineffectual Bill.

Alun Michael: rose

Douglas Hogg: Object!

Mr. Speaker: Let me be clear. Is there an objection to the Minister speaking again?

Douglas Hogg: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It takes only one objection, and the Minister does not have a right to speak again. [Interruption.] Order. In that case, I shall call a Member from the Government side. Does Martin Salter wish to address the House?

Martin Salter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you correct me if I am wrong? I was under the impression that when a right hon. or hon. Member moved a motion, he had the right to reply to it, and did not need leave.

Mr. Speaker: Parliamentary rules say that the Bill is an Order of the Day, therefore neither the Minister nor any Member has the right to address the House on two occasions if there is one objection. [Interruption.] Order. I am guided by the rules of the House.

David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I accept your ruling. Can you tell the House whether you recollect, during your time in the House of Commons since 1979, a Minister being refused permission to speak for the second time?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to recall the matter. I am guided by the rules of the House.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are, of course, entirely correct. I do not remember since 1970 anybody having such an objection called against them, but nor do I remember any time when the Government failed to put up two Ministers to defend their own Bill. Do you remember such an occasion?

Margaret Beckett: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Lady please be seated? We shall be here all evening discussing points of order, when I have clearly made a ruling based on the rules of the House. I call the Secretary of State.

Margaret Beckett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful to the House to know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is at the Agriculture Council in Brussels, from where I have just returned, which is why I was not in the Chamber earlier. I do not believe that even the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) would wish someone who had not heard the debate to reply to it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was engaged in other parliamentary business.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take another point of order.

John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that the matter affects the rural areas of Britain considerably. The Secretary of State is right: she cannot be asked to reply to a debate

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Any further points of order on the matter will delay an hon. Member addressing the House. I call Mr. Salter.

Martin Salter: Now is not the time for soundbites, but I feel the hand of history upon me. With my short political career, I am gratified that Conservative Members are so anxious to prevent me from speaking, and that Members on the Government Benches are so anxious to prevent me from giving this speech from the Dispatch Box, but I shall have to live with that.
	I have been listening to the debate with interest, for what seems like many years. I have not come armed with a lengthy or prepared speech, but I shall use the time available to me. My views on hunting with hounds are well known. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who said that probably not a single opinion was swayed in the House tonight as a result of any argument that was made. However, I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Welsh nationalists and represents somewhere fairly unpronounceable, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), because he put together a coherent argument about why lamping will not necessarily work over waterside nature reserves, and I thank him for that point.
	What I am interested in exploring is whether the fourth Bill on hunting to come before the House in six years will ensure the end of the obscene and barbaric sport of hunting wild mammals with hounds, or whether, as some have said, it is merely an unworkable fudge that pleases no one other than the lawyers and the middle way group. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider that the letter circulated by the middle way group was something of a mixed blessing.
	As a supporter of early-day motion 273, which calls for a total ban on hunting, I can find little to commend in the Bill.

Nick Palmer: Both of us support that early-day motion, which my hon. Friend initiated, and have supported earlier early-day motions on the same subject. Does he agree that the Bill gives us the first chance that we have had in our generation to end hunting with hounds? Does he also agree that, whatever its defects, it is an entirely welcome development[Interruption.]

Martin Salter: I thank my hon. Friend for the parts of his intervention that I heard. Most Labour Members have been consistent in calling for a hunting ban, but let us make no mistake: we will resist the blandishments of Opposition Members, because the only way in which we will deliver a ban is to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Tom Levitt: Opposition Members have been chastising us for making criminals out of people for doing something that is currently legal. Will my hon. Friend confirm my belief that the Bill is not retrospective, so the only people whom it will turn into criminals are those who knowingly break the law in future, once it has been enacted?

Martin Salter: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We saw no greater example of thuggery and criminal behaviour than that which was set by the rural yobs who were outside this place earlier. Opposition Members and others in the pro-hunting lobby claim that they are the champions of tradition and law and order, but we saw that they have selective hearing. They will condemn others who break the law. They are the group of people who used to run the country. They still own it, but they cannot come to terms with the fact that they no longer run it.

Tony Banks: Does not my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the arguments mounted tonight about the freedoms of minorities, the right to debate and the exchanges that we have in this House were ruined when my right hon. Friend the Minister attempted to respond to the debate in the logical, cool and dispassionate way in which he has attempted to proceed, but found that a sort of neo-Nazi group on the Opposition Benches tried to break it up?

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark. [Interruption.] Order. That term should not be used. I call on him to withdraw his remark. [Interruption.]

Tony Banks: I am being encouraged to withdraw the Xneo[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not want him to worry about the Xneo. He knows that he must withdraw the term that he used.

Tony Banks: Of course, I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. The fact is[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw without reservations and there should be no other remarks. He should withdraw his remark.

Tony Banks: I absolutely withdraw it, and I am glad that I have used up a few more minutes.

Martin Salter: I can only

Nick Palmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are no further points of order.

Martin Salter: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). I can only assume that he was referring in an over-enthusiastic way to the fact that the British National party was present at the liberty and livelihood march.

Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend, like me, find it confusing that those who want foxhunting to continue reject the notion of drag hunting, although it could preserve the rural jobs that they are constantly banging on about? Or do they reject it because they like the thrill of the chase, and the sight of blood?

Martin Salter: That is interesting. We have heard much from Conservative Members about the prejudice that has been evident in the debate. A number of us, including Ministers, were privileged to visit the New Forest drag hounds a few years ago. We remember the prejudice shown against the New Forest drag hounds by the hunting community, who made it impossible for them to drag hunt over specific tracts of land. I am as alive as any Member to the tactics that the Countryside Alliance and the hunt supporters will use to justify their arguments.
	I may have to do this in Committee or at a later stage, but I want to question the Minister about some of the presumptions behind the Bill. It is presumed that this Parliament is competent to rule on issues such as the death penalty, and competent to decide what is or is not treason and who will or will not go to prison

Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am glad that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) has had an opportunity to speak, but I am concerned about the fact that we have not heard the Minister's response to the debate. Now that it is permissible to put written ministerial statements on record, is it permissible for the record of today's debate to include the reply that the Minister would have made?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Minister will find another opportunity.

Several hon. Members: rose

Martin Salter: I have been extremely generous, and I will now take no more interventions.
	As I was saying, this Parliament is deemed competent to rule on the death penalty; yet for some reason we are being invited to sub-contract the decision on hunting first to a registrar and then to a tribunal including a land managerhow impartial will he or she be?a veterinary surgeon or a lawyer. When I told my constituents that I would vote for a total ban on hunting with hounds, I meant what I said. Unless I hear much better arguments than I have heard today, I will not vote for a Bill that sub-contracts the decision I make, as a Member of Parliament, to a body that is not elected.
	I also fear that the rich and powerful interests that back the hunting lobby will seek a judicial review of every decision made by the tribunal. There is talk of job losses, but if the Bill is passed unamended there will be a massive growth industry. Lawyers will line their pockets with fat fees. What we see now is the poverty of the argument

Keith Hill: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:
	The House divided: Ayes 371, Noes 155.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 365.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading).
	The House divided: Ayes 368, Noes 155.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

HUNTING BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13th February 2003.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.[Charlotte Atkins.]
	The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 165.

Question accordingly agreed to.

HUNTING BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Hunting Bill, it is expedient to authorise
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment, and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.[Charlotte Atkins.]
	The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 98.

Question accordingly agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEES

Motion made and Question Proposed,
	That
	(1) Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to Government departments) be amended as follows:
	In the Table
	Item 7, column 2, leave out from 'Office;' to 'and administration' in line 7 of that item;
	After item 8 insert
	
		
			  
			 'Lord Chancellor's Department Lord Chancellor's Department (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments) 
			 11'; 
		
	
	and
	(2) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended as follows: Paragraph (2), after 'International Development' insert 'Lord Chancellor's Department'.[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Hon. Members: Object. COMMITTEES

Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions 7 to 10.
	Ordered,

Education And Skills

That Mr John Baron be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr Robert Jackson be added to the Committee.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

That Mr Eric Martlew and Mr Mark Todd be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Ms Candy Atherton and Mr Mark Lazarowicz be added to the Committee.

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: HOUSING, PLANNING, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

That Alistair Burt be discharged from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions and Mr John Bercow be added to the Committee.

WELSH AFFAIRS

That Chris Ruane be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr Huw Edwards be added to the Committee.[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
	PETITION

Hunting with Dogs

Paul Truswell: Having just witnessed the Second Reading of the Bill that many people hope will herald the end of hunting in this country, I rise to present a petition signed by more than 2,800 of my constituents and others calling for the abolition of hunting with dogs, making specific reference to deer, hares, foxes and mink. It was collected over a relatively short period, and it is certain that many more signatures could have been secured had that been the objective of the exercise.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of Residents of Pudsey Constituency and others,
	Declares that hunting foxes, deer, hares and mink with dogs is a cruel and barbaric practice that has no place in a civilised society.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to ban hunting with dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

COALFIELDS (EDUCATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Jeff Ennis: I am delighted to have succeeded at long last in the ballot for this important Adjournment debate. I can tell the House that I have been trying for at least a year to secure this debate. Before turning to the issue of education in the coalfields, may I be the first Member to congratulate the Minister for School Standards on the recent football award that he won for scoring a goal at Newcastle? I am sure that he will enlighten the House further when he comes to reply to the debate[Interruption.] Yes, I know.
	The coalfields of Britain are still an important area despite the fact that most pits have now closed. The coalfields are substantial, and range from Fife and Ayrshire in Scotland through the north-east, west Cumbria, Yorkshire, Lancashire to the midlands, and the Welsh valleys. There are even coalfield communities not so far from here, in Kent. In total, Britain's coalfields have about 5 million people living in and around them. What is more, they are strong Labour communities, commonly known as the heartlands, so the Government ignore their voice at their own peril.
	The main stimulus for this debate was the publication in September 2000 of a report commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills from Tony Gore and Nicola Smith of Sheffield Hallam university, entitled XPatterns of educational achievement in the British coalfields. The four main findings of the research that I draw to the attention of the House are, first and foremost, that the proportion of pupils achieving five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C is 7 to 10 percentage points below the national average.
	Secondly, educational attainment in the coalfields tails off badly in the mid-teen years, between the ages of 14 and 16. In primary schools, the gap between performance in the coalfields and the national average is relatively small and has tended to narrow over time. Thirdly, there is no evidence that performance in the mid-teen years relative to the national average is getting any better. Lastly, even among those staying on in full-time education beyond 16, performance in the coalfields still lags behind the rest of the country.
	There is no suggestion in the research that the coalfields are unique. A number of comparator industrial areas show similar evidence of underachievement, but the research concludes:
	XAlthough none of the individual coalfield areas may be amongst the worst performing in the country when compared with some inner city LEAs, the consistency of the shortfall between the figures and the national averages, especially at secondary level, gives cause for concern.
	The report also states:
	XFurther action is required, especially directed at those in their teenage years. The geographical scope of such action needs to be wider than a small number of schools or a limited selection of relatively small neighbourhoods.
	For mining areas, the issue is a great worry, because it is in our children that the future welfare of our communities lies. The widespread closure of the pits in the 1980s and 1990s brought mass unemployment and social decline to many parts of Britain, none more so than in my area. In 1984 we had 10 pits employing 12,000 workers, and more importantly, the prospect of well-paid steady jobs in the coal industry for the young people of our towns. Less than 10 years later, all 10 pits were shut and a whole generation of workers was effectively written off as surplus to requirements by the previous Tory Administration.
	Why do we have a record of underachievement in many of our coalfield areas? I suspect that one of the main causes of the problem is historical. At school-leaving age, young men and women could rely on getting a job at the pit or in its related industries. There was no need for qualifications, as the Coal Board provided on-the-job training throughout one's career, so there was a great tradition of schooling in coalfield areas. The most able children went into professional careers, such as management and surveying. The middle tier became electricians and fitters at the pit, and the less skilled became faceworkers or worked on the pit top or in haulage and so on.
	Now times have changed, and the only way young people will get decent, well-paid jobs is if they are adequately qualified. The research is worrying. Without action by the Department for Education and Skills, another generation could go the way of the previous one. I do not deny that the present Government, more than any other before them, have made education their top priority. Government initiatives such as the literacy and numeracy hours are making a tremendous impact on the overall levels of attainment throughout Britain. However, good as these policies are, they are national policies from which all our children benefit, but they do not address the problem of the gap in performance that exists between the coalfields and the rest of the country.
	In the coalfields and in other areas where performance lags badly, there need to be extra, targeted initiatives if those areas are ever to catch up with the rest of the country. I have mentioned the success of the literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. Another Government initiative that has been extremely successful at both primary and secondary level has been education action zones. The Barnsley education action zone, which was set up in 1998, was one of the first 12 nationally. It contained 21 schoolsthree secondary schools, 16 primary schools, one special school and one nursery school. I should like to highlight the record of achievement of one of the schools in that zone, which is situated in my patch: Willowgarth high school in Grimethorpe. Willowgarth's improvement has been greater than the zone average. It has moved from a record of 13 per cent. of pupils gaining five A to C passes in 1998 to 35 per cent. in 2001. That is a remarkable increase of almost 200 per cent. in its success rate in less than four years. I had the privilege of presenting the annual achievement awards at Willowgarth some two weeks ago. It was a delight to see the look of satisfaction and pride on the faces of all the children and parents.
	Achieving educational success is not the big mystery that it is sometimes made out to be. It is about a motivated work force, both teaching and non-teaching, working in harmony with the students and, equally as importantly, with parents and the local community, so that the school becomes a focus for local pride. That is what is now happening at Willowgarth. Before the education action zone was established, Willowgarth never came higher than 12th out of the 14 secondary schools in Barnsley in its record of achievement. It is now fifth out of 14an incredible performance that speaks for itself.
	Another important feature of Willowgarth's success is the fact that 35 per cent. of pupils leaving the school were accredited with work-related key skills. Some 90 per cent. of pupils leaving in 2001 did so with an accredited information and communications technology qualificationeither a GCSE pass or a GNVQhelping better to equip the children for the world of work.
	In my opinion, the main reasons why the EAZ has been so successful at Willowgarth are the broadening of the curriculum to include more GNVQs and the extension of the school day to support targeted students. It is that sort of support, which the EAZ staff have provided, that is vital to continuing educational success in the coalfield areas, especially via the excellence in cities initiatives, which are now superseding many of the larger EAZs.
	Incidentally, Willowgarth high school has submitted a bid for technology specialist school status. I endorse the bid and commend it to the Minister.
	While I am on the subject of specialist schools, I should like to point out that all coalfield MPs were delighted with the Secretary of State's recent announcement that greater flexibility would be given with regard to achieving the #50,000 private sponsorship level. I know from my constituency's experience that that has acted as a major barrier to schools in coalfield areas in bidding for specialist school status. I have personally campaigned on the issue for some considerable time.
	An exception to the #50,000 sponsorship rule can, however, be found in my constituency. Ridgewood school in Scawsby in Doncaster has submitted a bid to become one of the country's first engineering specialist schools. The bid has struck a chord with local businesses. Given Doncaster's international reputation as a centre of engineering excellence, that does not surprise me. After all, great steam engines such as the Flying Scotsman, the Mallard and the Blue Peter were all built in Doncaster. Some 70 local employers have already signed up to the bid and 20 have offered financial support, ranging from an offer of #150 from a small company to one of #10,000 from a major local engineering employer.
	Ridgewood's record of achievement is very impressive. This year, it achieved a 65 per cent. rate in those gaining five GCSE passes with A to C grades. That was the second best record of any school in Doncaster. From a social inclusion perspective, more than 90 per cent. of the students achieved five A to G grades. Every student in the sixth form at Ridgewood was entered for exams and the school achieved the outstanding success rate of 100 per cent., with every student getting at least one A to G grade. That is also fantastic.
	As I understand it, only a handful of schools nationally are so far bidding for engineering specialist school status. I commend Ridgewood's bid to the Minister as an exceptional one.
	It would be remiss of me not to mention Doncaster's desire to become an education city. This is an excellent initiative, putting education at the heart of Doncaster's future regeneration. It is an extremely interesting project, co-sponsored by Doncaster council, Doncaster college and Huddersfield university. As the Minister probably knows, I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, which will go to Doncaster in the new year to look at the education city project.
	Another successful initiative from which both Barnsley and Doncaster have benefited is the implementation, in recent years, of education maintenance allowances. They have made a big difference to the staying-on rate among pupils over 16, especially in Doncaster, where there has been a 5 per cent. increase. I was delighted to learn that from next April EMAs will be rolled out nationally. As I am sure the Minister knows, my Select Committee has recommended that consideration be given to extending EMAs to higher education. I strongly support that idea.
	There is no doubt that there is a major funding crisis in higher education that the Government must address. I am glad that they seem to be moving away from the idea of top-up fees, which I know would be very unpopular with students and parents alike. My bottom line is this: I will support the system that will take more students from poorer backgrounds to university. That should be the Government's main objective in trying to deal with the funding crisis. So far, we have signally failed to achieve that goal. I believe that tuition fees have produced a major barrier to higher education, particularly for students from mining communities.
	The Minister may well say XHow can that be, as 40 per cent. of students do not pay tuition fees? I would give two main reasons. First, a cash culture is still very prevalent in coalfield areas, which probably contain the highest percentage of people without bank accounts. Cash is still the key in those communities. Secondly, but more important, there is still an anti-debt culture in the coalfields as a direct consequence of the 1985 miners' strike. Many mining communities and families were brought to their knees financially by that strike, and it will be some time before the anti-strike attitude disperses.
	It is for those reasons that I am becoming more in favour of a graduate tax, or an end-loading rather than a front-loading of student debt. I also feel strongly, however, that not just graduates should bridge the current funding crisis in higher education; the Government have a responsibility to play their part.
	So far I have tried to highlight the Government's many achievements for the coalfield areas, but what more can be done? I would like the Government to consider two issues in particular. First, in response to the 1998 coalfield taskforce report commissioned by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Education and Skills has introduced no measures targeted specifically at the need to raise performance in coalfield schools and colleges. The coalfield communities campaign, which I am pleased to say is based in Barnsley and represents more than 80 local education authorities, would like the Government to consider measures intended specifically for coalfield areas, given the scale of the current problem of under-achievement.
	Secondly, the most important deviation from the Government's Xone size fits all approach has been the introduction, in 1998, of the excellence in cities initiative, which set a precedent by targeting areas where educational achievement lags behind. The trouble is that most coalfield areas tend not to be cities. The classic mining communities usually have a population of between 2,000 and 10,000, so most coalfield areas fail to qualify for this important source of special support. The Government must seriously consider rolling out the relevant features of the excellence in cities initiative to all coalfield areasand I mean all of them.
	In the coalfield communities, a generation of older workers has been discarded through the running down of the mining industry. The Government must not discard a younger generation of people in the same communities through failing to enable them to achieve acceptable educational standards.

David Miliband: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) on not only his outstanding speech tonight but the passion with which he speaks on the Floor of the House, in the Select Committee on Education and Skills and elsewhere. On my first appearance before the Select Committee in June, he asked me about some of the issues that he raised tonight. He pursues them diligently. He knows, although other hon. Members may not, that I shall appear before the Committee again on Wednesday. I look forward to continuing the conversation with him then.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), and the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) are present. I congratulate them on staying here at this late hour for an important debate and providing moral support for me as well as for my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. I hope that I would have been present for the debate, even if I were not the Minister answering it because South Shields is a former mining constituency. Many of the issues that my hon. Friend raised also affect my constituency.
	The meeting of the coalfield communities campaign to which my hon. Friend referred, and at which the educational research was first published, was held in the town hall in South Shields. I spoke at the conference, and I perceive such issues as critical in changing structures and cultures in my constituency.
	My hon. Friend mentioned some important data that were produced jointly by the Department and the coalfield communities campaign under the Department's sponsorship. That independent research dealt with educational attainment in coalfield areas. It is unfortunately true that although pupils in our constituencies fare well at primary school and do some outstanding work, by the time they reach secondary school and key stage 3, which covers 11 to 14-year-olds, GCSE and beyond, attainment falls well below national averages.
	The research that we commissioned warned against a specific Xcoalfield effect, and highlighted other parts of the country where similar under-performance occurs. However, my hon. Friend made a powerful case to show that specific factors are at play. For example, the lack of investment in the coalfield areas in the past 20 years, especially in the 1980s, had a devastating effect and the speed of economic collapse left little time for the planning that is necessary to deal with major industrial change.
	My hon. Friend did not have much time to congratulate the teachers and pupils in Barnsley on their outstanding work. I hope that he will forgive me if I take a few moments to do that. In the middle of much discussion of problems, we should not forget that teachers, head teachers, support staff and pupils work in schools in the coalfield areas day in, day out for 38 weeks a year. Some achieve remarkable results. My hon. Friend may know the figures that I am about to cite, but perhaps other hon. Members do not. In Barnsley, at key stage 2, which covers 11-year-olds, the number of children who read, write and count well when they leave primary school increased by 11 per cent. in the three years to 2001. In maths, the percentage of children who do well has increased from 55 per cent. to 63 per cent., and for science, the figure increased from 64 per cent. in 1998 to 82 per cent. in 2001. Those are significant advances.
	Just under 30 per cent. of 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds gained five A to C grades at GCSE in 1998. In 2001, that had increased to more than 35 per cent. My hon. Friend referred to the outstanding work of the education action zone in Barnsley. The higher than average rates of improvement in that zone are testimony to the power of Government intervention and to the potential that exists in those communities. The young people who are growing up there have the potential to do well in education.
	In the education action zone, the number of seven-year-olds who read to the expected standard has increased by 12 per cent., compared with a national average of 4 per cent. in the past three years. There are similar figures for 11-year-olds: there has been a 16 per cent. rise in the number of young people doing well at that age. The effects are, however, less marked at secondary level than at primary level, and that is the issue that my hon. Friend is highlighting in this debate.
	I want to focus the second half of my remarks on the challenge that we face in the secondary sector. In the spirit of harmony that is prevailing in the Chamber at the moment, I shall start with some more good news about Barnsley. My hon. Friend will remember that, in 1999, 28.6 per cent.nearly a thirdof children in Barnsley were failing to get five grades A to C at GCSE. I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker, I meant to say that the percentage of lower-attaining schools was nearly one third. Two years later, that percentage had been halved. The number of schools where less than 25 per cent. of pupils were getting five good GCSEs had been halved in the space of two years. We await this year's statistics withwell, I was going to say trepidation, but, in the light of the figures that I have just given, I should say that we await them with anticipation, because I am confident that the outstanding performance of the young people and teachers in the area will continue.
	Like my hon. Friend, we want to go further in raising the performance of young people in the coalfield areas, because the truth is that they do not just need average levels of performance; they need to perform above the average level if they are going to overcome some of the disadvantages that are placed in their way. I want to highlight for my hon. Friend four issues that we are focusing on over the next three years to tackle some of the problems. The first relates to the quality of school leadershipnot just the head teacher but the senior management team, comprising 12 to 15 people in any primary school. We want to ensure that they are of the highest quality, and have the proper training and support. As part of the excellence in cities group, schools in Barnsley will be receiving #125,000 a year extra for the next three years, specifically for leadership development, because we all know that the leadership of a school is a critical factor in raising performance.
	Secondly, we want more schools to have access to the specialist schools programme and to share their facilities and their excellence. I can tell my hon. Friend that 20 per cent. of secondary schools in coalfield areas are now specialist schools, and I am delighted to say that, of the four bids for engineering college status, two have come from coalfield areas. I hear what my hon. Friend has said about Willowgarth and Ridgewood, and I will certainly look carefully at the applications that have been made. In fact, they are already being carefully scrutinised. I would trespass into dangerous territory if I said anything further on that, but I promise him that there will be due diligence in the assessment of those bids.
	I hope that my hon. Friend was pleased by the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the development of a partnership fund to help to bridge the sponsorship gap in cases in which schools have worked hard to build the links with the outside community that are important to a successful secondary school and can lead to the motivation and development of curriculums and programmes that support young people's achievement, but in which there has been a problem in raising the full funds. We want to help to bridge that gap, and the partnership fund will help to do that.
	The third priority for us is the reform of the school work force. My hon. Friend referred to the range of professionals who work in schools. Obviously, there will be the head teacher, the teachers and the caretaker, but there will also be learning mentors who come in to support young people, language specialists, and sports coaches who come in to support teachers and help young people. That is a major part of the agenda, and I am pleased to say that funding for young people in Barnsley will have risen from an average of #2,840 per pupil in 199697 to #3,850 by 200506. The preponderance of that money will be in the hands of the head teachers to spend on a range of staffnot just teachers; other support staff as wellto make the most of the learning opportunities for young people.
	Our fourth priority is to develop partnership beyond the classroom. My hon. Friend referred fleetingly to the important role of parents, and I completely agree with his points about supporting good behaviour and high aspiration. The role of outside bodies, notably universities, is also important in helping to broaden the horizons of young people and to give them the confidence to aim high in terms of higher education or high-quality vocational education. This is not just a matter of programmes and structures; it is also a matter of culture. Too many young people think that university is beyond them, when in fact they have the brains to do well. We need to do a better job of helping them to gain access to information on what is good about university life. We also need to ask the universities to play a more proactive role in helping to raise standards within schools. There is major work to be done in linking our higher and further education institutions with our secondary schools. That is the way to provide the role models that will help young people to believe that they can move on and achieve a lot.
	On challenging the poverty of aspiration that has at times marred some coalfield communities, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that 15 of the 72 education action zones and 13 of the 58 excellence in cities areas are in coalfield communities. I very much take his point about the need to extend the excellence in cities programme and its success beyond cities. That is why we are developing the excellence clusters programme to take care of smaller areas, which are not defined as a city but which can benefit from the strands of work at the heart of that programme.
	My hon. Friend also referred to education maintenance allowances, and I know that he has campaigned for a long time for the nationwide outreach of that programme. I can confirm that that will happen next year.
	The debate is drawing to a close, so I should point out that we on the Labour BenchesI am sure that I can speak also for the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price)are all committed to every single child. We believe that every single child is special and that every single child has a talent and a potential to fulfil. It is the job of the education system to help to develop that talent to the full. Some children face greater barriers than others, and the Government's job is to help them to overcome those barriers. We recognise that and the need to address the issue, which involves funding as well as programmes. It also involves a culture of achievement, which must go from the top of the education system to the bottom.
	I reject wholeheartedly the terrible English curse according to which, somehow, more means worse and that more achievement represents a dilution of standards. I say the oppositemore achievement is testimony to the hard work of children and the skills of their teachers. If any proof of that were needed, I know from my research for the debate that there is already a beacon school in Barnsley, Darfield Upperwood primary, whose outstanding performance has delivered a better education not just for its own pupils, but for other pupils in the area.
	That is the theme behind much of what we are doing. Let us not confine excellence to the few; let us spread it to the many, because the many have potential as well as the right to see it fulfilled.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.